Caspian Crusade

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21

User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by mmarquo »

Maybe MT will now turn tail and head to the Polish border to save Berlin...

[:D]
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by Michael T »

End Axis T6 (24th July 1941) Clear.

AGN: The direct path to Leningrad is taken as the grind begins. There is no line at Lake Janis.

AGC: 2nd PzGp continues north east and moves in to Torzhok and Kalinin. 3rd PzGp swings south east and pockets Vyzama. The two PzGps have now split to lengthen the Soviet lines.

AGS: A great victory beckons as most of the Soviet troops defending the Dneipr are surrounded. The smaller of the two pockets will get broken but the large Kiev pocket should hold. This is a disaster for the Soviet south. Only a lack of fuel will slow the Axis armies in the south for the next few turns. Overall around 30 plus divisions are trapped in this operation.


Image
Attachments
T6.jpg
T6.jpg (1.09 MiB) Viewed 183 times
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by Flaviusx »

Not sure why he was holding on to the Dnepr line in the south to begin with. Rostov may be doable after all in 41.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by Michael T »

Quick T7 update. To my surprise M60 broke the main Kiev pocket as well as the smaller one and the Vyzma pocket in the centre. Things have gone crazy in the south as now the Axis have encircled even more Soviets but the pockets are loose so they will get broken again. But I have lots of INF on the way so ultimately all those Soviets will be POW's. But it does delay the advance.

In the North we edged closer to Leningrad and M60 isolated my Pz XX in Kalinin. We rescued them. Supply is the problem now. Probably two more turns before we can get moving again.

Full map and update at end T8.

User avatar
STEF78
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:22 pm
Location: Versailles, France

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by STEF78 »

I feel like an absolute beginner when I look at your maps on turn 5 then on turn 6 in the south.

How are you able to keep such a mobility (MP) in your pzd/mot at this stage of the game?
GHC 9-0-3
SHC 10-0-4
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by Michael T »

I devote a lot of time and effort in figuring how to get from A to B for the least cost. Plus maximising the flow of fuel to the front, whether it be HQBU, Air Supply or the rail net.
swkuh
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:10 pm

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by swkuh »

First part I get and can do, but have no clue about maximizing (except air supply) "flow of fuel." Thought HQBU too expensive and, yes, I keep HQs near or on RR tracks. But I never get the penetrations [&:] that I see in your games. Or, in those of others.

Would you elucidate or give a thread reference that might help me?
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by Michael T »

There is no simple explanation guys. In the early days we had unlimited HQBU, muling and a much more liberal Air Supply function. So deep penetrations back then were relatively easy to maintain. The game has now reined in HQBU, muling and Air Supply so its very difficult to do now. The latest patch put a range limit on the distance an AB can be from a railhead and still do air supply. This was a real blow to what I and others could do previously. So every game started since 1.06.27 is new territory as far as the Axis 1941 summer is concerned. Forget about all those games you saw previously or started before 1.06.27, you can no longer replicate those results in the current game state. Period.

However if you are very focused on your logistical network you can devise a system that will allow some deep moves if your opponent has a weakness in his lines. There is no single rule to follow. Each situation requires its own solution. Only study, practice and game experience will give you the tools to develop the right plan. But there is enough 'juice' left in the system to get a single Pz Group deep in to Russia, if your opponent leaves a door open for you.

I could put forward several examples but I am reticent because you will always get a section who will say its gamey, abusive etc etc and should be rubbed out. Sorry, but there is so little left in the game now for Germany in 1941 that I dare not risk what is left. Anyone who has read my posts will know that I have exposed at least two major logistical loopholes that I considered legitimate and obvious bugs. So I am not talking about that kind of thing.

I am talking about a lot of little things here and there that together add up to the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by Flaviusx »

You seem to be doing just fine with these alleged scraps, MT.

I find these advances quite unrealistic; I find some of the recent blizzard porn shown elsewhere equally problematic. Late war Soviet scenarios as well.

In real life these advances would have been impossible to sustain at the speeds the game allows and with the lack of losses for the attacker. The game is severely biased in favor of the offense for those who have mastered the details. You ought to be troubled by this. It's not just a 1941 Barbarossa problem.



WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by Michael T »

I play the game for what it is, a game. Its the best around on the subject matter. I am happy to play either side. I am an offensive orientated player so its all fine by me. To my thinking you won't be happy until we have two immovable objects facing each other with neither side having any chance to dislodge the other. Sounds like WWI to me. I am not in to that and if that is where the game ends up I will move on. I enjoy games that allow some movement. Not trench warfare. That equals boring for me.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by Flaviusx »

It's the best around, sure, but there's enormous room for improvement. We'll see how WITW shakes out.

I'm not looking for WWI here. I'm looking for WW2. This warp speed combat model is a bit much. Everything is just tremendously accelerated.

WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by Michael T »

The defence offered by the enemy plays no small part in it all. You can't outlaw a bad defence and a bad defence should be punished.
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by Michael T »

I should qualify that statement. Not saying M60's defence is bad. But if a weakness is found it should be able to be taken advantage of, thats all.
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by Michael T »

I really don't see what is wrong in this game so far.

On T3 I took advantage of a weakness north of Vitebsk. This snowballed all the way to Kallinin by T6 (could have been T5 but for one very stubborn defender) because I chose to funnel all the fuel I could to the units in that sector. Simply reinforcing a success.

In the south I ever so slowly crept up to the Dneipr with fuel tanks nearly full just waiting to strike as soon as he stopped running. He chose to defend the Dneipr with what I consider very weak units. Obviously he had all his best guys around Moscow. Anyway I was waiting and hoping for such a mistake on his part.

So I really don't see a problem here. I might add M60 has done a fine job in closing all this down now and I am really struggling with supply as my advance has taken me beyond re-supply range for the moment. His OOB is rising and in some area's his lines are very solid and getting stronger.
swkuh
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:10 pm

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by swkuh »

Appreciate your thoughtful response to my questions.

Hmmm...sounds like I have to work hard and depend on brains to do it. This means I'm lost!

Will be following these AARs, though.
User avatar
Ketza
Posts: 2227
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:11 am
Location: Columbia, Maryland

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by Ketza »

I concur that it seems that there were some glaring mistakes that were taken advantage of and the Axis advance appears somewhat reasonable because of it.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by Flaviusx »

Oh, no doubt M60 has made errors, but even taken those into consideration, the advance is remarkable. I do not think panzers should be zipping about the map with 50 movement points on turns 4-5 from a position on or about the Dnepr, period. This is incredibly generous logistics. It shouldn't even be possible to do this, physically. It wasn't in reality, not even close.

Let's put this in a WITW context. After Falaise the German resistance more or less collapsed and the Allies surged forward. Yet within a few weeks they were literally running out of gas and could not bounce the Rhine even against sketchy German resistance. These are distances well short of what we are seeing here. Without some changes to the game, I'm not seeing how this can be recreated. Am very curious to see how WITW will adress this. Otherwise it's going to be a quick trip to Berlin.

WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by Michael T »

Look at North Africa in 41/42. The Germans were able to advance many 100's Km with a very lame logistical system. Sure it was only one Corp but look at the system it was relying on. No rail at all, purely trucks and air supply.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by Flaviusx »

Ah but even Rommel ran out of luck and gas after Gazala. (And this despite capturing supplies in Tobruk.)

Earlier attempts at getting far into Egypt stumbled for logistical reasons as well when the British retained Tobruk. He was sent packing during the Crusader counteroffensive. But the British themselves overreached, Rommel got some convoys through, and that set up the stage for the Gazala battles in 42.

It all came down to logistics in NA in the end, for both sides.

Libya was a poor base for logistics. No rail net, very limited port capacity, extremely long overland supply lines that beyond a certain point snapped. It naturally tended to devolve into a battle for control of the various ports along the way, primarily Benghazi and Tobruk, with a good deal of give and take and change of fortunes. The issue was only definitively settled at Alamein with the DAK in an untenable position logistically and the Commonwealth benefiting from a massive buildup near its own base of supply.

Hopefully WITW will be a testbed for game systems that can recreate this ebb and flow. Vanilla WITE won't do it.

WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Caspian Crusade (no M60A3TTS please)

Post by Michael T »

Flavius the only point I am trying to make is that against no resistance, i.e. a simple charge across the plain, that mech units can range quite far, even when tied to a very thin supply link. Its only when real resistance is encountered that 'supply issues' arise. My ascertion is that these advances depend very much on the 'resistance' offered by the defender.

Resistance gives the friction that eats up the fuel. Simply driving from A to B without firing a shot should and is much cheaper in fuel.
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”