Turn 56: 5-11 August 1944

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Turn 56: 5-11 August 1944

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 West >> After Action Reports >> Turn 56: 5-11 August 1944

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Turn 56: 5-11 August 1944 - 12/24/2015 3:24:23 PM

loki100

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

Turn 56: 5-11 August 1944

Main event this turn was that the Polish army tried to take revenge for 1939. It managed to break through the German lines.

Problem with this is it reminded the German army of 1939 ...

As we will see in coming turns, being reminded of past glories is not always a good idea when you really need to pay attention to the present.

Elsewhere more bombing.

Anyway VP and EF situation:

Losses:

_____________________________

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 91

RE: Turn 54: 22 � 28 July 1944 - 12/24/2015 3:50:52 PM

Harrybanana

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

in general I'm not convinced that the VP situation is wrong at the moment. Broadly you could argue the real war ended in either a draw or an allied marginal victory ... and that was with a number of significant German mistakes such as holding in Normandy too long and then the Ardennes Offensive. From the perspective of their leadership this made sense but if your goal was to minimise your 'defeat' then they are clearly things a player won't do.

I agree with you to an extent. In particular I agree that the Western Allies High Command generally out performed the German High Command during the time period covered by this game. So I think it would be unfair if the game required the Western Allies Player to capture all of the geography/cities that they historically captured just to get a Draw. I agree with you that if the WA Player is able to achieve what the Western Allies did historically he is entitled to a Minor Victory. But I do not agree that the WA Player should be rewarded with a Minor Victory, or even a Draw, if he doesn't even capture Paris. At a minimum the WA Player should be required to capture all of France, Belgium and most of Italy to get a Draw.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 92

RE: Turn 54: 22 � 28 July 1944 - 12/31/2015 11:49:33 AM

loki100

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

since the debate on VP scoring etc is now over at least 3 threads I'll not respond directly.

What I'll do is to keep on posting losses/vp scores - not least as we are both making mistakes and the game is sort of close to the real front lines etc.

I think that is useful as a major problem in WiTE is very partial information being presented by a few players [1] who like to exploit the systems - the result is a risk the game gets balanced around them not the bulk of people who play these games for fun, or against the AI.

[1] - or one?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Harrybanana)

Post #: 93

Turn 57: 12 � 18 August 1944 - 12/31/2015 11:51:22 AM

loki100

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

Turn 57: 12 � 18 August 1944

Careful readers will recall that last turn I was making a lot of self-congratulatory comments about re-enacting the glories of 1939. Unfortunately my opponent remembered it really is 1944:

It also seems as if his airforce came back from their summer holidays.

Even my old chums from 15 Air failed to cheer me up

Well I had to try?

Time to run I fear.

So onto the losses:

East Front disaster strikes again:

_____________________________

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 94

Turn 58: 19 � 25 August 1944 - 1/3/2016 10:46:14 AM

loki100

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

Turn 58: 19 � 25 August 1944

Not surprisingly the Allies manage to disrupt my front lines even if I managed to create enough friction to prevent a clean breakout.

At least they paid a substantial cost in terms of victory points for battle casualties

So I decided it was time to let the problems of Allied resupply work in my favour. A few selected cities are left with a garrison to slow up the pursuit but basically I'm pulling back into Belgium. Defending the La Chouffe factories in the Ardennes is a major objective.

I have a number of problems coming together. I've just lost 3 (probably irreplaceable) Pzr divisions, I've been sending 80% of my reinforcements to the east in a failing attempt to regain some stability over there and my remaining armour has suffered for all that interdiction.

So I have a pragmatic set of goals � hold Antwerp and Marseilles as long as possible (I've found these are the ports that make the real difference). Try to keep just out of reach of the main allied forces (my own experience is Dave will have to be pretty ruthless about supply allocation). Use this to try and hold the allies west of the Rhine for as long as possible.

As an experiment, I've also decided to try and hold onto a number of the larger Channel ports. We'll see if this is a useless diversion of units better used for defending the Reich or a further, valuable, gain in slowing the Allies ability to resupply. No idea if this is a good plan or not but want to test out if I can gain more by stressing the allies' supply lines than by building a strong defense.

_____________________________

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 95

Turn 59: 26 August � 1 September 1944 - 1/4/2016 8:02:38 PM

loki100

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

Turn 59: 26 August � 1 September 1944

Not really that much to report for this turn. The Wehrmacht was ordered to practice running at high speed.

However, I decided to risk the Luftwaffe on a rare offensive. My logic was that allied fighter cover would be weak over their spearheads so this was a chance to use airpower to my advantage.

My fall back lines are partly prepared but I ideally need a few turns of re-organising and resting before combat operations restart in earnest again.

At least the Allies are paying for their victories.

And Uncle Joe seems to have settled down to a nap after his recent gains.

Overall my reserves of manpower and equipment are ok.

_____________________________

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 96

Turn 60: 2 � 8 September 1944 - 1/7/2016 7:28:34 PM

loki100

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

Turn 60: 2 � 8 September 1944

First stage of 'lets run as fast as we can' is over. I'm not going to hold this line for long but see no reason to give the Allies too much free gains.

Basically I want to hold the allies west of the Maas/Meuse/Moselle so that crossing that is their winter project, not crossing the Rhine.

I decided to try an experiment with stay behind garrisons. The AI does this and it can be a pain to deal with, but I've not seen it tried in other PBEMs. I'm also determined to hold Antwerp as long as I can and then deny the Allies clear movement on the Scheldt estuary.

In the air bomber command has cleary been taking lessons from 15 Air. has no one told them that U-boats are soooo 1943?

That was the only bit of light relief in the air. Since I've swapped most of the fighter squadrons from using trained pilots, my losses are horrendous. The only good thing is I have a lot of planes.

Uncle Joe slumbers, but I fear will wake up at any moment

_____________________________

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 97

RE: Turn 60: 2 � 8 September 1944 - 1/7/2016 8:46:55 PM

KWG

Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

I decided to try an experiment with stay behind garrisons. The AI does this and it can be a pain to deal with,

the AI is very good at that and it's like a tick.

_____________________________

"A word was said - a mare is standing by the fence."

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 98

RE: Turn 60: 2 � 8 September 1944 - 1/8/2016 7:18:44 AM

loki100

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

quote:

I decided to try an experiment with stay behind garrisons. The AI does this and it can be a pain to deal with,

the AI is very good at that and it's like a tick.

think this works very well as it really gains from the standard +10%/-10% shift on challenging, also it seems to be prepared to set up defensive stacks > 100.

I'm not sure about it in PBEM, but I may have made the mistake of setting up too many smaller garrisons and perhaps the same troop commitment to fewer ports might have been more effective.

_____________________________

(in reply to KWG)

Post #: 99

RE: Turn 54: 22 � 28 July 1944 - 1/8/2016 10:03:55 PM

Harrybanana

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

since the debate on VP scoring etc is now over at least 3 threads I'll not respond directly.

What I'll do is to keep on posting losses/vp scores - not least as we are both making mistakes and the game is sort of close to the real front lines etc.

I think that is useful as a major problem in WiTE is very partial information being presented by a few players [1] who like to exploit the systems - the result is a risk the game gets balanced around them not the bulk of people who play these games for fun, or against the AI.

[1] - or one?

Loki in my questioning of the VP System I am pointing out what I think are two separate problems with the System. The first is that it is possible for the WA Player to "Bomb for VPs" and thereby win at least a minor victory without capturing any German territory and perhaps without even capturing Rome or Paris. The second is that irrespective of the current VP Score (ie whether the WA Player is winning by 500 points or losing by 500 points) at some point in an EF Box Off game (I say around the summer or fall of 1944) the WA Player will gain more VPs (or perhaps lose fewer) by Turtling than he will by continuing to attack. Now some people think that even if either or both of these are true it is still not a problem. On that point we disagree.

With respect I don't think your game will be too helpful with respect to the first problem. This is because it does not appear, to me anyway, that SmokinDave was ever trying to Bomb for VPs. I mean as of September 2, 1944 he has scored only 169 SB VPs (an average of only about 3 per turn) which is less than the VPs he has lost to UBoats and VWpns. This suggests to me that either he was bombing non-VP targets (Vehicles, AFVs, Aircraft, etc), or he was letting the AI choose the size of his bombing missions (in my experience it is far more effective to have 10 missions of 50 bombers than the one mission of 500 bombers that the AI likes to do), or he wasn't doing much Strategic bombing at all. Of course, the other possibility is that you have utilized very effective counter-measures to Strategic bombing. I believe I am about to encounter those myself in my game with Liquidsky. So if that is the case would you be willing to post here what those counter measures were?

With respect to the problem of the WA player Turtling, I am unsure if your game will provide useful data or not. The reason is that you have the EF Box turned ON so if Dave turtles you could send more units East thus delaying the end of the game. However, I very much doubt that Dave will Turtle. So I am following this game with a lot of interest. In particular I am anxious to see if Dave gains or loses VPs between now and Games End. My guess is that if he keeps attacking he will lose a lot. But we will see.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 100

RE: Turn 54: 22 � 28 July 1944 - 1/9/2016 10:36:43 PM

loki100

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

Loki in my questioning of the VP System I am pointing out what I think are two separate problems with the System. The first is that it is possible for the WA Player to "Bomb for VPs" and thereby win at least a minor victory without capturing any German territory and perhaps without even capturing Rome or Paris. The second is that irrespective of the current VP Score (ie whether the WA Player is winning by 500 points or losing by 500 points) at some point in an EF Box Off game (I say around the summer or fall of 1944) the WA Player will gain more VPs (or perhaps lose fewer) by Turtling than he will by continuing to attack. Now some people think that even if either or both of these are true it is still not a problem. On that point we disagree.

With respect I don't think your game will be too helpful with respect to the first problem. This is because it does not appear, to me anyway, that SmokinDave was ever trying to Bomb for VPs. I mean as of September 2, 1944 he has scored only 169 SB VPs (an average of only about 3 per turn) which is less than the VPs he has lost to UBoats and VWpns. This suggests to me that either he was bombing non-VP targets (Vehicles, AFVs, Aircraft, etc), or he was letting the AI choose the size of his bombing missions (in my experience it is far more effective to have 10 missions of 50 bombers than the one mission of 500 bombers that the AI likes to do), or he wasn't doing much Strategic bombing at all. Of course, the other possibility is that you have utilized very effective counter-measures to Strategic bombing. I believe I am about to encounter those myself in my game with Liquidsky. So if that is the case would you be willing to post here what those counter measures were?

With respect to the problem of the WA player Turtling, I am unsure if your game will provide useful data or not. The reason is that you have the EF Box turned ON so if Dave turtles you could send more units East thus delaying the end of the game. However, I very much doubt that Dave will Turtle. So I am following this game with a lot of interest. In particular I am anxious to see if Dave gains or loses VPs between now and Games End. My guess is that if he keeps attacking he will lose a lot. But we will see.

fair comments, I agree with the aspect that an allied player should see an incentive to carry on attacking in a normal game, but I also like the fact there are other options. Problem with closing off bombing to win is you make it easy for someone like Pelton to min/max against a simpler set of outcomes.

All games provide useful data, even those that end up completely one sided. It gives an idea of the likely range for a given style of game.

This thread is open to Dave (its quite a bit behind and I don't think there is that much long term planning with the German side once the Allies are in France). However, he said he'd rather not read till the game is over so I'll not comment on his bombing strategy till he has chance to rebut or provide his side of the debate. But I think he's relied a lot on auto upgrade and while that is fine with the B-17s, Lancasters, Halifaxes etc its a bit hit and miss for the other British bombers (I've noticed some older stuff on his raids that I would have changed by now). He's also mostly done single hex raids.

My defense has relied on a few basic ideas.

I put the day fighters under 1 Jagd corps and the NFs under II Jagd Corps. I've never set an air directive with either (so they only fly to need). At the start I put all those fighter squadrons on TPI in order to keep their effectiveness high. I then organised so the less effective planes were deeper in the Reich the Bf-109s/Fw190s were on the borders (as of now they almost all are deep and I'm relying on flak to defend the western cities). I made sure that all were maximised for air combat (so no drop tanks) and shifted them from base to base as I felt was sensible. There were also turns I set the entire group to rest.

What I wanted to do was to win (decisively) any battle rather than marginally. Having played the Allies more, I've come to regard damage as a bigger issue than outright losses (due to the morale impact). A shot up bomber squadron can be out of action for 3-4 weeks. I've paid particular attention to making 15 Air's life a misery. Its usually less well escorted, usually a guddle of plane types so can be vulnerable.

Overall this set up a game of cat and mouse - some turns I completely missed his raids, on others they walked into a heavy fighter concentration.

From early 1944 I started scrapping NFs to free up the pilots for the day squadrons (I probably was too slow and too conservative about doing this). Also spend Admin Pts getting your flak to cover key cities and repair key assets.

_____________________________

(in reply to Harrybanana)

Post #: 101

RE: Turn 54: 22 � 28 July 1944 - 1/9/2016 11:54:31 PM

KWG

Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

But I think he's relied a lot on auto upgrade and while that is fine with the B-17s, Lancasters, Halifaxes etc its a bit hit and miss for the other British bombers (I've noticed some older stuff on his raids that I would have changed by now).

Many potential strategies in managing the aircraft replacements. Types, numbers of, weapons, in/out production, missions to be used for - Lots of ways to configure the system.
I like using the Hurricane II even till the end. So many of them, great for ground support squadrons.

< Message edited by KWG -- 1/10/2016 12:55:16 AM >

_____________________________

"A word was said - a mare is standing by the fence."

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 102

RE: Turn 54: 22 � 28 July 1944 - 1/10/2016 7:46:00 AM

loki100

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

quote:

But I think he's relied a lot on auto upgrade and while that is fine with the B-17s, Lancasters, Halifaxes etc its a bit hit and miss for the other British bombers (I've noticed some older stuff on his raids that I would have changed by now).

Many potential strategies in managing the aircraft replacements. Types, numbers of, weapons, in/out production, missions to be used for - Lots of ways to configure the system.
I like using the Hurricane II even till the end. So many of them, great for ground support squadrons.

fully agree, especially the rocket armed hurricane, I mean what is there not to like, not least it seems to be a limitless pool. I should have been clearer, I was actually referring to strategic bombers (or to the 2 engined bombers used in that role)

_____________________________

(in reply to KWG)

Post #: 103

RE: Turn 54: 22 � 28 July 1944 - 1/10/2016 6:25:54 PM

KWG

Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

quote:

But I think he's relied a lot on auto upgrade and while that is fine with the B-17s, Lancasters, Halifaxes etc its a bit hit and miss for the other British bombers (I've noticed some older stuff on his raids that I would have changed by now).

Many potential strategies in managing the aircraft replacements. Types, numbers of, weapons, in/out production, missions to be used for - Lots of ways to configure the system.
I like using the Hurricane II even till the end. So many of them, great for ground support squadrons.

fully agree, especially the rocket armed hurricane, I mean what is there not to like, not least it seems to be a limitless pool. I should have been clearer, I was actually referring to strategic bombers (or to the 2 engined bombers used in that role)

I didnt mean to infer you were wrong but that your opponent may be being SNEAKY

_____________________________

"A word was said - a mare is standing by the fence."

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 104

RE: Turn 54: 22 � 28 July 1944 - 1/10/2016 7:15:43 PM

loki100

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

I didnt mean to infer you were wrong but that your opponent may be being SNEAKY

oh he has been that on a few times, problem with playing against someone who is very good at WiTE, he really understands how the ground combat system works

_____________________________

(in reply to KWG)

Post #: 105

Turn 61: 9 � 15 September 1944 - 1/10/2016 7:17:30 PM

loki100

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

Turn 61: 9 � 15 September 1944

First Dunkirk surrendered � so I am really not sure my 'stay behind' choice has worked and second its clear the allied airforce has woken up. Most of Flanders has been plastered by ground attacks.

On the ground the Allies made progress to the south of Brussels but I'm going to hold on around there for a while. I really want to ensure he can't cross the Maas before the autumn rains.

Losses:

At least the allied fighter bombers paid a high price for their actions.

Bomber Command and US 8 Air Force seemed to feel the urge to vacation together over Berlin

I think that was the first raid on Berlin in the game.

This led me to rethink the deployment of my fighter squadrons.

EF is not too bad, but that is with sending almost all my new reinforcements over there as well as almost all replacements.

_____________________________

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 106

Turn 62: 16 � 22 September 1944 - 1/13/2016 8:37:59 PM

loki100

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

Turn 62: 16 � 22 September 1944

More of my stay behind strategy is dismantled and the Allies manage to outflank my Brussels defences.

VP situation

And losses

Anyway I manage a very satisfying counter-attack

In fact two.

I think this is some sort of in-game record � to actually attack twice in the same turn

Do a partial pull back but want to delay the Allies taking Antwerp as long as I can

_____________________________

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 107

Turn 63: 23 � 29 September 1944 - 1/19/2016 8:25:49 AM

loki100

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

Turn 63: 23 � 29 September 1944

The Allies make some gains at Antwerp-Brussels. Again I decide to stick to my 'stay behind' strategy. I must admit, with hindsight, I'm not convinced this was such a good approach. They also try to capture Nice.

Losses

Oddly one of my better turns in the air recently. I've pulled back the Reich defensive air groups away from the borders so the Allied bombers are a little less well escorted.

VP situation is predictable. The Allies are trading losses for longer term gains.

_____________________________

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 108

RE: Turn 63: 23 � 29 September 1944 - 1/19/2016 10:01:24 PM

Peltonx

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

Nice AAR as always Loki

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 109

RE: Turn 63: 23 � 29 September 1944 - 1/20/2016 1:30:47 PM

invernomuto

Posts: 986
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline

Very interesting AAR Loki!

_____________________________

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 110

RE: Turn 63: 23 � 29 September 1944 - 1/21/2016 4:00:05 PM

loki100

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Nice AAR as always Loki

quote:

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

Very interesting AAR Loki!

thank you both

_____________________________

(in reply to invernomuto)

Post #: 111

Turn 64: 30 September � 6 October 1944 - 1/21/2016 4:01:19 PM

loki100

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

Turn 64: 30 September � 6 October 1944

In Belgium, there was no surprise, even if the news was unwelcome. Brussels and Antwerp are both surrounded but as long as I hold the Walcheren peninsular then Antwerp remains unusable.

In Southern France, the Allies reach the Italian border. This is a bit worrying as my main line in Italy is already stretched as thin as I dare (having seen all its reserves removed from enduring the rigors of Northern Italy and sent off to have an easy time fighting the Soviets).

Anyway in an attempt to slow the Allies on this sector I commit what is left of the Axis airforces in Italy (mostly Italian) to try and interdict Cannes and his landing zones.

In Belgium, I fall back behind the Maas, hoping this will slow the allies till bad weather helps out

_____________________________

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 112

RE: Turn 64: 30 September � 6 October 1944 - 1/21/2016 10:18:41 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

You can hold the Alpine border of France/Italy with really weak units, but you need to get some guys over there. Even weak divisions broken into regiments. 2 or 3 divisions should be plenty

Once that border falls, you'll probably need to pull out of Italy to the Austrian border.....

_____________________________

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 113

RE: Turn 64: 30 September � 6 October 1944 - 1/22/2016 7:26:35 AM

loki100

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

You can hold the Alpine border of France/Italy with really weak units, but you need to get some guys over there. Even weak divisions broken into regiments. 2 or 3 divisions should be plenty

Once that border falls, you'll probably need to pull out of Italy to the Austrian border.....

this is where my early game mismanagement of the EF box is snowballing to be honest (as it should). Originally I had a couple of divisions broken down around the key entry points and you are right, that pretty much locks down the border. However, a while back they were sent off to keep Uncle Joe under control.

Your second comment is what I ended up doing, pull back far enough that I could actually release units for other fronts

_____________________________

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 114

Turn 65: 7 � 13 October 1944 - 1/22/2016 10:24:44 AM

loki100

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

Turn 65: 7 � 13 October 1944

Antwerp falls but Brussels holds out. Clearly my troops need time to drink the last of the Mort Subite stocks in the city.

Add to that a predictable disaster in Italy.

A combination of the units I've lost testing out a 'stay behind' strategy and trying to shore up the East Front is really starting to hurt � even if it is at least two turns since Uncle Joe kept off the vodka long enough to lurch westwards.

Losses � by recent turns the air war was pretty good. 15 Air decided to entertain my redeployed fighters around Vienna.

So Italy led to a major revision, I'll fall back first to the Piave but probably to the border. Key really is to free up some formations for deployment to more critical fronts. There is little to be gained now for holding Milan when either the Allies or the Soviets take Berlin.

_____________________________

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 115

Turn 66: 14 � 20 October 1944 - 1/25/2016 3:35:08 PM

loki100

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

Turn 66: 14 � 20 October 1944

I've had a few turns without too much hassle from the allied tactical air forces. Well not only did my brave troops in Brussels finally surrender (but only after clearing out the Orval stocks), it seems the allies don't want to wait to winter to force the Maas.

To add to my general feeling of despair, the VP screen revealed that Uncle Joe clearly had a raging hangover and took it out on my army

Should add that as far as I'm concerned the beachhead penalty was a mistake, so we are around +100-180, given the problems on the EF this game is going to end early so I think with an Allied minor victory.

Losses

Fairly bad in the air, despite pulling back most of my fighters to deeper in Germany.

Oddly for all that air activity, the Allies actually made no real progress, apart from isolating my units on the Walcheren.

_____________________________

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 116

Turns 67-68: 21 October � 3 November 1944 - 1/26/2016 1:44:48 PM

loki100

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

Turns 67-68: 21 October � 3 November 1944

I'm going to start conflating turns as the reality of my situation now is all I can do is react to Allied pressure. There is a rather grim fun to be had in terms of gameplay where small victories (or avoidance of defeat) take some organising, but its hard to capture that in any text.

All that experience of playing the Soviets in 1941 helps here ... apart from that you know in this case its just going to get worse and there is no chance of recovery � unless all the secret/wonder weapons pay off.

Anyway.

T67 had a limited bit of good news. I'd deployed about 70% of 2 Jagd Corps (my Reich defence fighters) down around Vienna. Our old chums the 15 Air Force headed straight for the heffalump trap.

Not as good a payback as earlier in the war but by recent turns that counts as a bit of a victory.

T68, saw the Allies force the line of the Maas. While this is worrying, I decided against immediately pulling back towards the Rhine. They will have a challenge with supply and it may take a couple of turns to expand their control over the east bank.

VP and EF � at least the allies paid for forcing the Maas.

_____________________________

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 117

RE: Turns 67-68: 21 October � 3 November 1944 - 1/27/2016 3:44:56 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

IMO, the Germans should stand and fight along that line as long as possible. You can use the Maas, the rough terrain along the Ardennes, the Moselle, and the Woods/Hills in Alsace to form a good intermediate line. The West Wall should also be used before the Rhine, though as you know, Forts in open terrain don't last long.

You have to keep the Allies on the West bank of the Rhine until March if you want to keep them out of Germany

_____________________________

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 118

RE: Turns 67-68: 21 October � 3 November 1944 - 1/27/2016 8:19:00 PM

loki100

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

IMO, the Germans should stand and fight along that line as long as possible. You can use the Maas, the rough terrain along the Ardennes, the Moselle, and the Woods/Hills in Alsace to form a good intermediate line. The West Wall should also be used before the Rhine, though as you know, Forts in open terrain don't last long.

You have to keep the Allies on the West bank of the Rhine until March if you want to keep them out of Germany

agree, but its easier said than done. I've got myself into a mess on both the western and eastern fronts ... finding it very hard to get the Pzr divisions in the west to refit to a decent ToE %

_____________________________

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 119

Turns 69-70: 4 � 17 November 1944 - 1/28/2016 6:41:33 AM

loki100

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

Turns 69-70: 4 � 17 November 1944

Again I'm going to run two turns together. Not least as the first turn was heavy rain and nothing actually happened.

T70 was not that lively. The Allies surrounded Luxembourg but I managed to pull my units out and managed a small extension to their Maas bridgehead.

Again, my strategy of concentrating what is left of the Luftwaffe seemed to pay off. I'm clearly taking very high losses but at least doing enough damage to ground some of the Allied bombers.