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: T14 Pockets in the North

 
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: T14 Pockets in the North Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: T14 Pockets in the North - 12/3/2013 7:29:43 AM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

He took Leningrad so the Fins are able to attack south of the no attack line. Saper is probably going to surround your troops in the pocket with the Finnish units and then wait until November to kill them. That way they won't come back as replacements. It's one of those cheesy WitE strategies.

Indeed. I did suggest giving the Russians a 'surrender' button for all units pocketed before a certain date, if it's too much trouble to work out how many reinforcement units they should really get.

I think this is one of the reason's sapper is so unpopular in some quarters. He did this on me a couple of years back, and it was right to test the game. But to still be doing it so much later does demonstrate a love of winning over respect for the historically plausible.

_____________________________

“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 151
RE: T14 Pockets in the North - 12/3/2013 8:53:16 AM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
I hate to say it Tom but your toast at this point because of the manpower crunch, even if you hang on you will not beable to start pushing west until late 43 or early 44, most likely summer 44.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 152
RE: T14 Pockets in the North - 12/3/2013 12:57:03 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
You may be right Pelton, I made some early mistakes that caused knock on effects, for example the Leningrad pocket happened because I did not have the troops to fill a hole that I knew was there. Those troops were lost T2 near Minsk because I did not have a good understanding of how fast Saper222 could move.

Saper222 may be able to pull off an auto victory in 1942 but I am doing what I can to stop him.

As I play the game one of the things I find interesting is the way design decisions cause reinforcing feedback loops. These can be very hard to break, for example Red Army losses in T1 or T2 can weaken the defense in ways that cause more losses later. I'm not sure this is good, because it can make the game very deterministic, and deterministic equals broken in the mind of most players. After all, where is the fun in playing a game when you know what will happen in the end and can't change it?

I'm still playing and thinking about this, but its something I am likely to return to in the discussion around this AAR.

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 153
RE: T14 Pockets in the North - 12/3/2013 1:00:55 PM   
Callistrid

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 8/11/2011
Status: offline
Tom Hunter will be hard or mild winter?

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 154
T15 War without casualties - 12/3/2013 2:05:19 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
@Callistrid We are playing with the original hard winter.

Saper222 did not push in T15, which I am inclined to think is a mistake. The Red Army is a bit over 4.1 million and Saper could certainly beat it up some more. The only ground attacks were at the Leningrad pocket, where a number of units surrendered as expected, it will be gone next turn.

There was a lot of combat over airbases, I lost 255 planes, Saper222 lost 80. Some fronts are much better than others, I still have 16s and even a few I-15s on the front line, when those units get hit the casualty rate goes high. I've got 15 fighter groups with experience of 70 or higher, and one at 86, when the good stuff is in action the casualty rates are much more favorable.

Saper222 sent a note saying I will need a good winter to win, which I am sure is true. If I was placing bets at the start of the game I would have bet on Saper222, he started with a major edge in experience. That advantage has narrowed a lot, but my losses have been very high and it will be tough to recover. It is very nice of Saper to help me recover by not attacking.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Callistrid)
Post #: 155
RE: 'Uber Players' - 12/3/2013 3:20:01 PM   
lastkozak


Posts: 267
Joined: 11/22/2011
Status: offline
In playing this game with the different versions, one can use hindsight, but some forms of hindsight have to be realistic. How realistic is it to continue to conduct Panzer HQ build ups, and Ju52 drops, when the decrease in supplies result in starving the rest of your army of needed supplies. I should think the units with little supply, would have morale problems as the war continues; they would question the competency of their General staff, even if their were reports of deep thrusts by panzers. Further any General would be fearful to drive their spearheads so deep without infantry support.

I do believe the Germans should use hindsight, and attempt other possible strategies for the war, as their were 3 or 4 different suggestions. But I am not sure how realistic it is for Panzers to be driving deep into the south on turn 2, when historically they could not get so far. Many people say the massive Lviv pocket is the only hope for the Germans, but have any of these 'Uber Players' ever thought that maybe the truth is, the Germans could not historically win, if the Soviets use hindsight and follow the original Stavka strategy which was run deep and far away and strike back later. If the German players are allowed to use hindsight then the soviets must also be allowed to use hindsight, but the German players do not want the Soviets to be able to use such until later in the game; assuming the soviets made the same mistakes for the first month of the war.

Turn 1 gives the Germans an advantage that may not be very historical. Turn one is half the amount of time, yet the Germans get full movement; reasonable if one takes into consideration the surprise element. (But there is evidence that Stalin knew of the German intention to invade in April of 1941, further he knew the attack was imminent at 1:00 am on June 22nd, and gave the order to all his troops to stand to). However lets assume the Soviets had absolutely no idea! In this game the Germans get full movement on Turn 1 and all attacks are conducted at half rate. That works out to the German army getting a 1st turn bonus of 4 times the normal movement allowances. The soviets on their first turn are halved in movement. I believe if one of these German bonuses were removed the game would appear a lot more historical, in that the Germans would move only as deep as they did, but have the ability to place Panzer armies where they wish.

I am not sure what resources the game designers used and how they would stand up to scrutiny by Historians. I do believe they have done an exceptional job, but using free game testers sometimes results in bias feedback, versus statistical analysis of the game mechanics. Soviet players tend to argue the Germans are too strong, German players tend to argue the Soviets are too strong. The only way to resolve this is to rely on facts and statistical probabilities to ensure that the game is played and the only factors are the two players strategy and tactics, within the limits of what they could have managed to do.

_____________________________

___________________________________________
Born and raised in Toronto, where our Hockey Team is smoking hot,
and our former Mayor was smoking crack!

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 156
RE: T14 Pockets in the North - 12/3/2013 4:14:36 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

As I play the game one of the things I find interesting is the way design decisions cause reinforcing feedback loops. These can be very hard to break, for example Red Army losses in T1 or T2 can weaken the defense in ways that cause more losses later. I'm not sure this is good, because it can make the game very deterministic, and deterministic equals broken in the mind of most players. After all, where is the fun in playing a game when you know what will happen in the end and can't change it?



You are right here, there is a 'rich get richer' aspect to key parts of this game and the logistic system (even before the cheese fest of some players) is too liberal to act as a restraint. So at this stage the Germans gain morale (Pelton's morale farming) and you just leach it. Equally those early losses come back as shells and drain your manpower pool - you need a balance between feeding the returnees and allocating replacements to key sectors.

Thats why Sapper managing to recreate the super-Lvov, despite the intent of the last patch, is so devasting - you can't deal with the equivalent of the four border fronts coming back into play.

The winter is a hard coded reversal, but its really the only one.

Late war, the main dynamic is that losses are stacked onto the losing side. So you see massive Soviet attacks, the sort that in reality left their rifle divisions as shells, with limited losses if they win. Then the logistic system is too weak to simulate the reality that they ran out of steam time and time again.

Given some will not be changed before WiTE2, to me, the goal is to find a way to have a game with the logistics toned down. Some is a matter of restraint wrt abuses of the game engine but I also think that setting logistics for both sides at a value under 100 (75 is good if you are playing the AI but a bit brutal in PBEM) starts to create that flow of either side taking a beating but then having a respite that allows a recovery.

< Message edited by loki100 -- 12/3/2013 5:16:03 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 157
RE: T14 Pockets in the North - 12/3/2013 6:37:15 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
It's an interesting technical question Loki, and I am still early in my efforts to demolish the game so I have not developed a strong opinion.

One thing that I do not see discussed much that I believe could be changed is the victory conditions. There are a lot of ways to manipulate them, for example vps for capturing units, More VPs the moment you cap a city, and have the number decline over time, which encourages the offensive. VPs for holding cities, for example the cities in the Lvov pocket, if the Soviets got VPs for keeping them then the Germans would have an incentive to take them away, and have a choice between making the pocket or collecting the VPs.

I suggest VP changes because people act on what is measured, you could get a substantial change in play if you simply changed the definition of success. Another example, if attacking generated VPs you would see the Soviets attack all the time, and the Soviet problem would be how to attack all the time without losing Russia, which is pretty close to the actual problem Stalin imposed on Stavka.


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 158
T15 Peace Breaks Out! - 12/3/2013 6:41:49 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
How many of you opened this up expecting to find that Saper222 has surrendered?

There were no ground attacks in Soviet T15, I did do some more or less random bombing which appears to have killed 10 Germans. More Germans were kicked to death by their own horses than killed by the Red Army this turn.

I considered another pullback, because I am sure Saper222 is considering another round of attacks, and I will likely pull back a bit T16.

I’ve started resting armies, and during the mud a lot of the Red Army is going to come off the line. I am looking at Moscow and the South for the winter offensive(s) Moscow for manpower, and the South so I have some VPs to give up.

Soviets have 4.1 million men, 35k arty, 2100 tanks and 6500 planes
Germans have 3.3 million men, 33k arty, 2500 tanks and 2800 planes
Axis Allies have 1.8 million men, 14k arty, 500 tanks and 1100 planes

I’ve got 233 Infantry formations (Div + Brigade) 16 are at 0 Toe, more than 200 are over 50%. My tank brigades are forming, there are tons of them, almost all at below 60% Toe.

Saper222 is very careful about setting up in positions that are vulnerable to counter attack, so I have no guards units yet, and may not for a while. Annoying but not much I can do about that.

I continue to use my rail to move factories out of danger, most recently in the area East of Moscow.

I am posting one map, because very little changed on the fronts.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 159
RE: T15 Peace Breaks Out! - 12/3/2013 7:09:10 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
His lack of attacks is no real surprise. He is furiously digging in around Moscow and will try and hold the city over the winter.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 160
RE: T15 Peace Breaks Out! - 12/3/2013 8:39:51 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
That may be true, or he may be digging in on a line further back, either way he is giving me a much needed rest several turns before the weather forces him to.

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 161
RE: T14 Pockets in the North - 12/4/2013 3:31:08 AM   
mktours

 

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline
Tom, I tend to disagree.
Indeed, I feel many good axis players like Michael T would agree that if the Soviet side react correctly, then it is almost impossible to lose. I read this forum quite thoroughly and that is my impression.
I am also playing a campaign as Soviet against Saper in the latest version at this moment, He has pocketed the SW front and 16A, but that is a normal lose. Although Saper is certainly a player way better than me, I still believe I could defend it, simply because the SHC has too much advantages.
The game is far from being decided after 2 turns. The challenge is nothing if being compared with what Zhukov was facing in the winter in 1941. A good SHC should be able to rally from disasters.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

You may be right Pelton, I made some early mistakes that caused knock on effects, for example the Leningrad pocket happened because I did not have the troops to fill a hole that I knew was there. Those troops were lost T2 near Minsk because I did not have a good understanding of how fast Saper222 could move.

Saper222 may be able to pull off an auto victory in 1942 but I am doing what I can to stop him.

As I play the game one of the things I find interesting is the way design decisions cause reinforcing feedback loops. These can be very hard to break, for example Red Army losses in T1 or T2 can weaken the defense in ways that cause more losses later. I'm not sure this is good, because it can make the game very deterministic, and deterministic equals broken in the mind of most players. After all, where is the fun in playing a game when you know what will happen in the end and can't change it?

I'm still playing and thinking about this, but its something I am likely to return to in the discussion around this AAR.


(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 162
RE: T14 Pockets in the North - 12/4/2013 10:08:05 AM   
Gabriel B.

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/24/2013
Status: offline
It is not a normal loss, because the SW front was not that foward deployed .

To be acurate ,turn 1 deployment represents the position it took on 26th , this makes me wonder what the soviet player is supose to do in the 22-26 timeframe .... since the movement to position is already made .

In the case of 8th Mech corps, 22nd Mech corps , 19th Mech corps, 9th Mech corps this is painfuly obvious .

Not so much for the 4th or 15th , which either run circles in the first 4 days or barely moved .



(in reply to mktours)
Post #: 163
RE: T14 Pockets in the North - 12/4/2013 10:52:59 AM   
mktours

 

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline
Gabriel,
I enjoy learning history knowledge from you,
When I said normal loss, I am referring to game playing. The game need to create some early disaster to make the game balance. After click the start button, things are impossible to be 100% historical correct. We see the SHC would not voluntarily allow the Kiev encirclement. I believe the most thrilling feeling in playing SHC is to rally from disaster. To sort out the mess in the opening turns is daunting but it offer the challenge. Without some disaster, the SHC could just cruise to win.
Lvov opening is very common, the extend Lvov is a double edge sword as it demands more troops to be transfered to the south and good SHC would know how to deal with it to be rewarded. The new opening of Saper is beautiful, it makes the game very competitive from the beginning.I appreciate it and myself is enjoying at defending it, though I am not sure if I could win as Saper is a better player than me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

It is not a normal loss, because the SW front was not that foward deployed .

To be acurate ,turn 1 deployment represents the position it took on 26th , this makes me wonder what the soviet player is supose to do in the 22-26 timeframe .... since the movement to position is already made .

In the case of 8th Mech corps, 22nd Mech corps , 19th Mech corps, 9th Mech corps this is painfuly obvious .

Not so much for the 4th or 15th , which either run circles in the first 4 days or barely moved .




(in reply to Gabriel B.)
Post #: 164
RE: T14 Pockets in the North - 12/4/2013 11:15:50 AM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

Tom, I tend to disagree.
Indeed, I feel many good axis players like Michael T would agree that if the Soviet side react correctly, then it is almost impossible to lose. I read this forum quite thoroughly and that is my impression.
I am also playing a campaign as Soviet against Saper in the latest version at this moment, He has pocketed the SW front and 16A, but that is a normal lose. Although Saper is certainly a player way better than me, I still believe I could defend it, simply because the SHC has too much advantages.
The game is far from being decided after 2 turns. The challenge is nothing if being compared with what Zhukov was facing in the winter in 1941. A good SHC should be able to rally from disasters.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

You may be right Pelton, I made some early mistakes that caused knock on effects, for example the Leningrad pocket happened because I did not have the troops to fill a hole that I knew was there. Those troops were lost T2 near Minsk because I did not have a good understanding of how fast Saper222 could move.

Saper222 may be able to pull off an auto victory in 1942 but I am doing what I can to stop him.

As I play the game one of the things I find interesting is the way design decisions cause reinforcing feedback loops. These can be very hard to break, for example Red Army losses in T1 or T2 can weaken the defense in ways that cause more losses later. I'm not sure this is good, because it can make the game very deterministic, and deterministic equals broken in the mind of most players. After all, where is the fun in playing a game when you know what will happen in the end and can't change it?

I'm still playing and thinking about this, but its something I am likely to return to in the discussion around this AAR.




Sapper has been defeated in the past, under better fuel/MP/logistical rule sets and so have I. Taking Moscow vs a good Russian player is simply not possible case in point:

MT vs Kamil http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3312376&mpage=11&key=

vs good Russian players that hold Moscow a draw is the best out come you can hope for as GHC under 1.07.11, unless the Russian player makes huge errors building Red Army 2.0
I would very much like a rematch vs Kamil and Hooooper once 1.07.13 is out as all the swapping bugs will be fixed by then.

vs the good Russian players I have failed to take Moscow once in 1941 under 1.06.13 much better fuel/MP/logistics rule sets vs Bobo, Hugh, Brian and Bigbubba.

Sapper stopping offensive operations so soon is a big mistake, your Army will grow very fast.

Sapper has only 1 games exp in 1942 and his tactics were a huge mistake the same for Bomazz. Even MT had next to nothing in exp past June 1942.

The rule set very much favors Russia holding Moscow IF your a good Russian player.

This opinion is based on the facts.

Good Russain players never lose Moscow.

PS M60 has lost Moscow in the past, but he has learnt from is errors and probably will never lose it again.


Also under 1.07.11 all things being equal should end in a draw, the German Army is simply not going to fall apart any more because of swapping bugs.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 12/4/2013 12:38:02 PM >


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to mktours)
Post #: 165
RE: T14 Pockets in the North - 12/4/2013 12:24:50 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Pelton, Sapper is so far ahead that it doesn't matter if he stops now. He just needs to ride out the winter and then deliver the coup de grace in 1942, and bear in mind this isn't the old blizzard anymore.

He could give up 150 miles across the front and still have a line east of Leningrad, Moscow, Voronezh and Rostov come spring.

Should he press on? Probably, but it's a moot point, he's crippled the Soviet replacement situation, at least in terms of manpower. Not sure what the factory losses are.

This is as lopsided a mismatch as you'll ever see and the results are predictable. They've been predictable to me since about turn 2. Bambi loses to Godzilla every time.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 166
RE: T14 Pockets in the North - 12/4/2013 12:31:32 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline
I think they are playing with the old blizzard rules. But I agree, it is pretty lopsided and it would surprise me if this match gets beyond 1942.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 167
RE: T14 Pockets in the North - 12/4/2013 1:43:25 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, Sapper is so far ahead that it doesn't matter if he stops now. He just needs to ride out the winter and then deliver the coup de grace in 1942, and bear in mind this isn't the old blizzard anymore.

He could give up 150 miles across the front and still have a line east of Leningrad, Moscow, Voronezh and Rostov come spring.

Should he press on? Probably, but it's a moot point, he's crippled the Soviet replacement situation, at least in terms of manpower. Not sure what the factory losses are.

This is as lopsided a mismatch as you'll ever see and the results are predictable. They've been predictable to me since about turn 2. Bambi loses to Godzilla every time.


True and true.

Mybee he wants some 1942 exp so when he needs it he will have a better understanding of what to do.

Cat playing with the mouse kind of thing.


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 168
Design issues - 12/4/2013 1:44:42 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
Maybe I was not clear when I wrote about the game being deterministic, or perhaps it was my Soviet/Lvov pocket example.
I’m not saying anything about the Soviets winning or losing when I say the game systems work in a way that may be deterministic. I’m saying that the feedback loops built into the design, combined with victory conditions based on holding cities at a specific moment in time tend to make the game deterministic.

To use the counter example, if the Germans don’t kill tons of Soviet units and capture a lot of cities early they have no chance at all. They need to have a very good turn 1, but after playing Saper222 I think they need to have a very good turn 2,3, all the way up to 17. Neither side seems to have good options to recover from mistakes, or even bad dice. This contrasts with War in the Pacific, where a player seems to have multiple options to recover a game that is going badly (barring somehow losing the Japanese Cv fleet early, but that very seldom happens).

So early moves, successes and mistakes magnify each other in ways that are not necessarily historical. Based on the comments in the forums,” if the Soviet side react correctly, then it is almost impossible to lose” -Mktours, “vs good Russian players that hold Moscow a draw is the best out come you can hope for as GHC under 1.07.1” –Pelton the effect is not great for play balance or for fun either.

I hope its clear that my comments on the design are about the design, not about any particular game mine or others. Pelton’s examples appear to support my point, Gabriel I am not sure what you disagree with, maybe this email helps clarify things and will lead to more discussion.

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 169
RE: Design issues - 12/4/2013 1:59:06 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Maybe I was not clear when I wrote about the game being deterministic, or perhaps it was my Soviet/Lvov pocket example.
I’m not saying anything about the Soviets winning or losing when I say the game systems work in a way that may be deterministic. I’m saying that the feedback loops built into the design, combined with victory conditions based on holding cities at a specific moment in time tend to make the game deterministic.

To use the counter example, if the Germans don’t kill tons of Soviet units and capture a lot of cities early they have no chance at all. They need to have a very good turn 1, but after playing Saper222 I think they need to have a very good turn 2,3, all the way up to 17. Neither side seems to have good options to recover from mistakes, or even bad dice. This contrasts with War in the Pacific, where a player seems to have multiple options to recover a game that is going badly (barring somehow losing the Japanese Cv fleet early, but that very seldom happens).

So early moves, successes and mistakes magnify each other in ways that are not necessarily historical. Based on the comments in the forums,” if the Soviet side react correctly, then it is almost impossible to lose” -Mktours, “vs good Russian players that hold Moscow a draw is the best out come you can hope for as GHC under 1.07.1” –Pelton the effect is not great for play balance or for fun either.

I hope its clear that my comments on the design are about the design, not about any particular game mine or others. Pelton’s examples appear to support my point, Gabriel I am not sure what you disagree with, maybe this email helps clarify things and will lead to more discussion.



It is true the GHC player has to have good turns from 1-10 ish, but the SHC player only needs to take the edge off each turn so that by turn 11-13 they are some what in control of there future.

Then comes 41/42 blizzard where GHC or SHC can lose their advantage.

Then again in 1942 both sides can make errors and give the other side the upper hand.

Then in 1943 SHC can make major errors with trucks or building the wrong Red Army 2.0

1.07.11 really added allot to the game 42-45 of which very few players have and exp.

The key is Moscow in 1941, which is historical in my opinion. If SHC can hang on to it, there is allot of the game to experience.


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 170
T15 Airwar - 12/4/2013 2:09:03 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
Airwar,
Saper222 continues to attack the Red Airforce. I’ve been watching the battles, and seen numerous posts that ask about the air war. Over all he destroyed Soviet planes at a rate of 5 to 1 in his favor in T15 but as always the details count.

I had my first successes up in the Leningrad area fighting the Finns, and was thinking it was because it was Migs and Laggs vs Gloucester Gladiators and other obsolete types. I think that is a factor, but looking at the combat model it does seem that numbers of fighters are more important than type.

These two air battles contain very similar mixes of Soviet planes. The top group fought at just about 1 to 1 and the losses were very similar, and certainly not sustainable for the Luftwaffe. The lower group were badly outnumbered, and the Germans achieved a 1 to 3 loss rate, which is more or less a win for the Germans.

Soviet air moral is in the 60s and 70s, the experience levels are mostly in the 60s but there are some up to 75.

My takeaway is you need to be looking for 1 to 1 odds if you can get them.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 171
RE: Design issues - 12/4/2013 2:21:52 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Maybe I was not clear when I wrote about the game being deterministic, or perhaps it was my Soviet/Lvov pocket example.
I’m not saying anything about the Soviets winning or losing when I say the game systems work in a way that may be deterministic. I’m saying that the feedback loops built into the design, combined with victory conditions based on holding cities at a specific moment in time tend to make the game deterministic.

To use the counter example, if the Germans don’t kill tons of Soviet units and capture a lot of cities early they have no chance at all. They need to have a very good turn 1, but after playing Saper222 I think they need to have a very good turn 2,3, all the way up to 17. Neither side seems to have good options to recover from mistakes, or even bad dice. This contrasts with War in the Pacific, where a player seems to have multiple options to recover a game that is going badly (barring somehow losing the Japanese Cv fleet early, but that very seldom happens).

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3294378
Look at Terje's AAR, even with a disastrous 1941 and subpar 42 he still nearly managed to draw the game. In fact he held Berlin until June 45. So I tend to disagree slightly with the notion that it is nearly impossible to recover from mistakes.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 172
RE: T15 Airwar - 12/4/2013 2:41:38 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

These two air battles contain very similar mixes of Soviet planes. The top group fought at just about 1 to 1 and the losses were very similar, and certainly not sustainable for the Luftwaffe. The lower group were badly outnumbered, and the Germans achieved a 1 to 3 loss rate, which is more or less a win for the Germans.

Soviet air moral is in the 60s and 70s, the experience levels are mostly in the 60s but there are some up to 75.

My takeaway is you need to be looking for 1 to 1 odds if you can get them.




I'd very much agree, in the early game phases the easiest way to wreck the VVS is to deploy your fighters in isolated groups. If you can't build a decent force (and that can include any and all the I-series) into a front, then its almost better to leave it empty (except possibly in the south where you are probably tangling with Axis Allied air)

Having said that, as long as you keep your industry more or less intact, I'm not sure that over time it makes a great deal of difference. At phases in the early game you'll have air superiority on one front or the other simply due to delays in bringing up the Luftwaffe - in my current game with SigUP, on the Moscow Front the VVS is pretty unopposed but in the North I need to swap my fighter squadrons out every other turn. By mid-42, its the German who has to pick where they want to contest the airwar.

Something I've started doing early is getting rid of the SAD air bases. The freed manpower is very welcome and it usually means you can gain 8-10 replacements before the VVS swaps to its mid-war OOB (at which stage its near impossible (even using junk) to load up your airbases to trigger this.


_____________________________


(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 173
RE: design issues - 12/4/2013 3:00:37 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
@SigUp I'ts always a design issue. You want cause an effect so players have control, but you want the end of the game to be inevitable at the start. Tic Tack Toe is the obvious example, we all though it was fun when we were 4 years old, sometime after that we figured out how to make every game a draw and it stopped being fun.

I'm still thinking about it, and I will look at that AAR. One of the reasons I keep playing this game is to see how our play interacts and look at what happens and what could be done next time. I've read a number of other AARs, and my thinking is based on those as much as this game, maybe based more on the other AARs than this game.

This game like any other single game, is a set of data points. It does not prove much either way.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 174
RE: design issues - 12/4/2013 3:40:02 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Terje is the master of the drawn out Axis defense and has surprised me repeatedly stretching out some really awful games to the bitter end and beyond. These almost count as moral victories for him.

Tom, you are not wrong that the game has a number of feedback loops built into it that tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Starting with, for example, the entire morale mechanic.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 175
RE: Design issues - 12/4/2013 5:01:52 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter
Maybe I was not clear when I wrote about the game being deterministic, or perhaps it was my Soviet/Lvov pocket example.
I’m not saying anything about the Soviets winning or losing when I say the game systems work in a way that may be deterministic. I’m saying that the feedback loops built into the design, combined with victory conditions based on holding cities at a specific moment in time tend to make the game deterministic.


This was pretty clear on your first statement already, and it is spot on to be honest. There were discussions in that regard and one conclusions was that one major weakness of WitE is that it is a "battlefield in vacuum", so to speak. All external factors, i.e. German production/reinforcement/withdrawal and replacement are derived from the historical course, and so is the entire Russian environment from Lend and Lease amounts to replacement/recruitment or unit cost.

There is simply no mechanism at this point that would treat situations (far) outside of the historical course, say the Germans having such and excellent campaign far exceeding expectations and goals just as you suffer from now, in which case most like the war mobilization would not have been pushed as it was, or perhaps even leading to Wehrmacht taking up its 1940 plans to take Gibraltar, send more troops to Africa or ultimately take on the Middle East -- which would all mean substantial unit withdrawals since the remaining Russian enemy was only to be finished or clean up. No more. Similarly, there no acceleration or increased "emergency" drafts on either side if situations deteriorate, or an increase in Lend and Lease as probably would have been the case if the Russian side had been closer to collapse -- without that front the Allies would have faced nearly insurmountable problems, so that they would have certainly seen to be avoided.

As such, there may be hope that a future "War in Europe" may include such limiting or "damping factors" to these "feedback-loops", within the realm of plausibility. But for now, when a game deteriorates as much as your situation, it will loose credibility. If not playability. I fear your present situation does not pose any hope anymore. I cannot see you be able to mount a good blizzard offensive with your present beat up Army, especially if I look at the buffer space Sapper has created and where he likely is digging. He will withdraw in December, maybe even in January, winter his most precious armor and infantry divs in the West, and face you with renewed strength while your morale will go down in 1942 -- no matter what "true" course and effects the 1941 battles will have had.

I think Sapper is truly in for a coup de grace, and it may be merely formal. Contrary to some of the above posts, e.g. mktours, it would appear that the present "balance point" of the game is fairly even. There has never been a real proof that either side is clearly having an advantage with the given VP sets, and statistically very few games to make any such claim. On top of that some are so peculiar and show one side or the other attempting new things that turn out to be major mistakes (e.g. the German player amassing all armor in one narrow axis of advance rather than use it to stretch the Russians thin, or even on top of that using such a clump of tanks to bully through the best defensive terrain on the map -- which naturally violates all wisdom on mobile warfare with little surprising end), that many cannot be considered fully or at all. With the latest changes it feels like the Axis challenge has gone up, but the Russian side still has to work hard to stop the steamroller, and is certainly neither doomed nor sure to be victorious. Chances for counterattacks have improved, but so has the German combat power with support units. Moral on the Russian side is also more stable, but in return this side now needs to more carefully built up, train and save its units if it wants to have a blizzard offensive under the new rule-set. I'd say right now the game is somewhere in the good middle ground, with factors like random weather and logistic constraint necessary to avoid to be biased too much to high offensive tempo (which applies to both Axis and Soviet, just at different phases). Beyond that, any talk of bias seems very mood at this point.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 176
RE: Design issues - 12/4/2013 7:04:24 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
People who often reference Michael T's games ignore the fact that he is an exceptional player on either side. So his results don't typify the norm. Moderately good Axis players can hedgehog effectively for extended periods of time without any logistical constraints. The Soviet player who is going to have any degree of mobility is largely tied to a truck fleet that remains stretched until the middle of 1943. The Soviet vehicle multiplier of .55 from 1942 onwards means making some very hard choices as to what does or does not get built.

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 177
Ponies and Rainbows for the Red Army - 12/4/2013 11:33:22 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
There is no reason to screenshot the map, as the lines have not moved much, though I did run some Cav out to recap towns and then run them back into my lines. It’s much to dangerous to attack now, which is another thing that is a bit odd about the game, its impossible to imagine Stalin accepting a pause like this, he would certainly be ordering counter attacks. Of course Stalin had a larger army with a greater replacement rate.

I am screenshotting the fronts, because Saper222s pause has allowed me to do something that I was thinking would be impossible until T18, which is start organizing the fronts and filling them out for the Winter. You can see that Western an Kalinin are both full (in fact a little over, but I am still tweaking.) The other fronts will be filled out as the game progresses. It’s pretty clear Saper thinks he is in very good shape, but I think it’s a huge mistake to let an opponent recover like this.

The Red Army is up to 4.2 million men (+.1 million), 36000 guns (+500) 2355 tanks (+250), and 6673 planes (+150). In contrast the Germans have gained about 100 tanks and 100 planes, but no men or guns. The Soviets are up to 252 divisions or brigades, which is a full 20 more than last turn. Of course most of the new ones are shells, but I also see a substantial increase in the number that are at 80, 90 and even 100%. 3000 members of the Red Army drank themselves to death by accident, none were killed by the Germans this turn.


One other effect of the pause, I am going to pull a complete front out of the line to rest and gain moral, as well as pulling specific army groups from individual fronts.

In the center I am building up airbases that may shift the air war casualty rates to 2 soviet for one german, at least they are configured in a way that has done that on other fronts.

Final question that I have been unable to find an answer to, is a motor pool of 200k (72k) good? 70 vehicle factories making 700 vehicles, with a couple of dozen recently moved.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 178
RE: Ponies and Rainbows for the Red Army - 12/5/2013 2:44:54 AM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline
quote:

Final question that I have been unable to find an answer to, is a motor pool of 200k (72k) good?


200k seems fine under the circumstances. These numbers will drop dramatically during the blizzard. Just make sure you don't build the wrong stuff in 42. Basically, you should build cavalry and sappers for your blizzard offensive. During 42 I would build nothing but infantry. Forget about tank and mech corps. I would even set a lot of tank brigades to static. That gives you extra trucks and APs. Once you build infantry corps fill them up with sappers. Wait with tank brigades until you have survived 42. Infantry grinds the Axis down!

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 179
RE: Ponies and Rainbows for the Red Army - 12/5/2013 5:43:23 AM   
Toidi

 

Posts: 200
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline
Sapper stopped as he could not supply the troops anymore. If he cannot supply them, they lose morale. That is the major reason for not getting any further. Well done for preserving your army reasonably well - if you can keep it like that in '42, you will win this game.

I think you need start to think about the blizzard offensive now.

During blizzard, I expect that your biggest enemy will be the length of your supply lines. I expect Sapper to fall back slowly in the south, so you will not be in contact much and will not pocket anything - his stop line will be probably around Voronezh - Stalino. You will not be able to hold south in '42 (and probably only delaying will be the option), but you need to regain as much ground as you can, so you can have more space to fall back. I expect that your progress in south will be constrained by your supply and how quickly you can repair rail (which is 1 hex per turn, mostly). If he is falling back fast and your infantry cannot really keep up, to gain ground quickly, use cavalry divisions (not corps). It is very important to be in contact with all the units at the end of each turn to ensure max attrition losses on Germans (if they break contact in their turn, you will suffer less attrition - but contact in the end of your turn affect attrition of Axis troops)

Sapper will most likely stay in the north, but in the north on marshes and heavy forests, when Germans are in lvl 3 forts, attacks are very difficult even with all the blizzard bonuses; also there are Finns which will meddle if things will get tough. As such, I would not count on major gains in the north, and move the majority of units from the north to middle (and possibly south). You will not get Leningrad during blizzard and sapper does not have any further objectives in the north - so you just need to make him man the front for maximum attrition. Of course, if you can attack, attack - that will lower morale of sapper units, but the morale will drop for most units below NM anyway due to automatic morale losses. Once it is below National Morale, each successful attack often results in multiple morale points increase, which means that the army will get back to National Morale quickly. Sure, if you can drop the morale during blizzard more, it is good as attrition losses increases - and the casualties during fighting add up too.

It leaves middle as the major offensive area. My guess is that Sapper will likely want to fight for Moscow. The terrain there seems to be defensible and he may try to dig in and make a stand, especially in January. However, you can still attack there if you mass your best troops. Think that cavalry are your tanks during blizzard. As for tactics, I would suggest to use 2 groups of cavalry corps in a pincer movement, aiming at encircling the Germans. In analogy to tanks, I would use the cavalry mostly as exploiting troops, with infantry doing as much heavy fighting as possible. In December cavalry corps will be immune to attack (unless things will change in the next beta) and in January they will be tough to attack (currently you need 3 full stacks of infantry needed for uncertain outcome).

During blizzard you need 10-20 divisions encircled to give you decent chances for surviving '42. Obviously the more the better. The other goal is to get space and manpower centres. Problem is that most cities will not repair before Sapper will get them back in '42 - but still you need the land which you can trade for time in '42.

The most devious strategy Sapper may employ is to fall back everywhere (by say 15-20+ hexes altogether till end of January) combined with quite massive sending troops to Germany to prevent morale losses. In such case you still need to encircle whatever is possible, but that will make your '42 as tough as it gets (as a 90 morale infantry division is 12+ cv, whereas 70 morale division is 7-8 cv - it does make a tremendous difference in combat and in attrition losses).

On a separate note, you are winning air war (well done). If you can keep 3:1 losses in fighters vs fighters, you win in the long run. If you get 5:1 losses in fighters you are losing... Of course, at the moment the balance may appear slightly shifted as you lost your MIGs from Moscow early, but 3:1 is still not bad.

As for '42, I guess your strategy will be to lose as few troops as possible while preventing the auto-victory conditions to trigger. If you can survive '42 with less than 100 divisions encircled, I am quite sure you will be able to win the game later on.

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: T14 Pockets in the North Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

1.094