A Grey Steppe Eagle (loki100 vs Vigabrand)

[loki100]

Turn 16: 2-8 October 1941

(short report as I made a mess of both taking screenshots and saving the turn – ie I forgot to do both so only have the turn as it arrived not after my moves).

In the north the Germans completed the isolation of Leningrad but did not press their attack on the exhausted Soviet formations falling back behind Tikhvin. In an attempt to improve morale in the cut off city, Stavka awarded Guards status to two of the divisions now trying to defend the birthplace of the revolution [1].



The Orel-Tula sector saw intense fighting as the Germans tried to seal the pocket around Orel and make progress through the multiple Soviet defensive lines around Tula. Stavka again committed the bulk of reinforcements to rebuilding Western Front to protect Moscow's southern flank.


(Soviet defensive positions near Tula)

In the south, the Germans finally hit at the weakened SW Front, encircling most of 5 Army at Kursk. However, a localised Soviet counterattack managed to re-open a supply line to the trapped units.

In the lower Dneipr battles, the main Soviet loss was Leonid Bobkin who was killed in a car accident [2] as the Germans pressed eastwards towards Stalino. Their spearheads were just 30 miles from the key industrial region as they engaged with the outer defences of 50 Army.




[1] Last turn, really for something to do, I'd attacked across the Neva and beat up a regiment of the 'Blue' Division. It appears that if a unit has no losses, it is just possible (if very unlikely) for it to reach the Gds threshold with 1 win (if you play with no +1 and mild winter).
[2] Rumours that his car had been recently serviced by specialist NKVD mechanics are, of course, completely false. But his army is no where near the Germans so this was a bit of a surprise.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With Leningrad now abandoned, the war became very personal. Communications were still intact and U2s and fast Pe-2s were able to evade German air cover, so key personnel were sent back and forth. Of course, for the bulk of the population, there was no escape and food was already becoming very scarce.



I hoped that my sister might be among those evacuated, but at this stage Stavka was refusing to admit the city was lost. Defending divisions were promoted to Gds status in an attempt to encourage resistance and Leningrad and North Western Fronts were apparently preparing a counterattack.

Even from the signals we knew this was false. Leningrad Front had been shattered in the Volkhov battles and needed time to rest and refit.

[morvael]

Large food reserves in form of a Hippo [:)]

By his death, Bobkin sabotaged the war effort of Soviet Union. And that means he was a traitor. No need to find out why he betrayed the Motherland. Case solved.

[lowtech]

It's a fair cop!

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Large food reserves in form of a Hippo [:)]

By his death, Bobkin sabotaged the war effort of Soviet Union. And that means he was a traitor. No need to find out why he betrayed the Motherland. Case solved.

ORIGINAL: lowtech

It's a fair cop!

do wonder if the beast survived the real siege? Can't imagine it was enjoying itself?

Suspect you are right about Bobkin, he was clearly a traitor even if just by having a car accident 100km to the rear

[loki100]

Turns 17-21: 9 October – 12 November 1941

Combat Operations

By the 9 October it became clear the Germans had suspended their offensive. Fighting carried on around Kursk were elements of 5 Army were trapped. A small Soviet counterattack opened the pocket on 12 October but the Germans were able to re-assert their control soon afterwards.


[1]

With autumn rains came a complete cessation of combat operations. However, taking advantage of holding the Crimea, Stavka commenced a sustained air attack on the Ploesti oil fields. Even if this did no real damage to the combat capacity of the Wehrmacht, it served to remind the Romanian leadership that the Soviet state could extract a high price for their invasion.




(Il-4 in action over Romania)

Finally 6 November brought the first snows of winter. Not trusting the German intentions, Stavka ordered the current front to be held. By the end of the week, it became clear that the Germans had fallen back to the frontline of early September. With this, Stavka ordered a cautious advance to bring the two armies back into contact.

Industrial Situation

By the end of November, the Soviets had managed to complete the first wave of factory evacuations towards the Urals. Few factories had been lost, mainly due to the constant counter-attacks that managed to delay the Germans by a few weeks here and there, or relieve the pressure on a key industrial city.

17 Heavy Industry and 29 Armaments Factories had been lost.



Substantial industrial capacity remained around Moscow and the Eastern Ukraine but this would be moved in the early winter.

Stavka had planned to ensure it retained 200 HI, 370 Arms Points and all 140 truck factories. In reality it seemed as if the long term industrial capacity was going to be 219 HI, 411 Arms Points and 140 trucks.

The key question is what does this mean going forward. The data below is from my AI game where I have 215 HI but it helps identify likely dynamics in most games.

First shows the % General Supply line. I could have picked out other metrics but this one seems to work as a proxy for overall trends.

Key thing is that by late 1942 and early 1943 I was having real problems and had to cut back on production. Mainly as my army was relatively large and you have so much demand for the production of armament points.



Next two lines show army and artillery size (this as it has a real impact on ammunition expenditure).





Finally I've shown two of the consumption lines, that used up in units and that used in ammunition production.



I like the way you can track the intensity of the fighting but also the impact of adding more artillery. Supply usage by unit has collapsed over the last 2 turns as this is the first time I've had mud and a real gap to my rail heads. That will recover in the near future.

The real issue is how to interpret this. The key point seemed to be late 1942/early 1943 (I know have masses of arms pts and supply in reserve). From comments on my last game, the critical point seems to be if general supply < 200%. So my army in this game would have been ok with about 200 HI (compared to my 215), just that would have forced a few more choices about allocation to production. A normal PBEM army (say around 7.8-8m) at the end of 1942 would need about 190 HI. Anything less and there will be a need to make some substantial choices about supply allocation – including not attacking to save ammunition.

[1] – Goal here is to breed Guards

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last doubts as to the fate of Leningrad were confirmed. Malinovsky and his staff were transferred to Bryansk Front's 40 Army as Stavka built up its forces south of Tula.

[Peltonx]

Great info.

Seeing your the expert in this area I have a question.

How big of an army would 135 hvy and 275 arm be able to support?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Great info.

Seeing your the expert in this area I have a question.

How big of an army would 135 hvy and 275 arm be able to support?

make no claims to expertise, just interested in trying to get some simple 'good enough' rules set out.

A few key ratios.

First total army size is a very good proxy for supply demanded within units. The correlation is about 94%, so while there is a lot going on, in truth you can rely on army size: unit supply consumption as the core ratio.

To put this into context, every 200 men want just over 1 unit of supply (its actually 1.01).

Equally very roughly, 34% of all supply goes into production (I have a rough average of 95% of potential production being produced so this could be a little higher or a fair bit lower).

In 1942, 18% of supply goes to arms pts building, in 1942 this drops to 15% - assume that is due to the more stable Soviet ToEs at that stage (also in my game all I've built in 1943 is some specialist artillery, eng brigades and mech corps).

Each pt of HI will support 1.6 pts of arms pts.
Each pt of HI produces on average 512 supply units in 1942 and 641 in 1943.

So if you have 135 HI, any APts over 200 are effectively wasted (this was the problem I got into in my game with SigUp).

If your game is in 1943 then 135 HI * 641 = 86,300 (plus LL). Lets say 30,000 goes on production, whats left needs to produce ammunition (very variable) and fortifications. I think the key ratio here is that ammo + forts cost about 35,000 per turn. So that would leave 21,000 to supply an army, by my ratio roughly 4.2 million.

To this needs to be added LL, and that you can reduce production substantially, certainly by mid-43 you don't need that many arms pts till the 1944 ToEs start. But given that you need all those other things (even forts to protect your advance), I don't think you could supply much over 5 million?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Great info.

Seeing your the expert in this area I have a question.

How big of an army would 135 hvy and 275 arm be able to support?

make no claims to expertise, just interested in trying to get some simple 'good enough' rules set out.

A few key ratios.

First total army size is a very good proxy for supply demanded within units. The correlation is about 94%, so while there is a lot going on, in truth you can rely on army size: unit supply consumption as the core ratio.

To put this into context, every 200 men want just over 1 unit of supply (its actually 1.01).

Equally very roughly, 34% of all supply goes into production (I have a rough average of 95% of potential production being produced so this could be a little higher or a fair bit lower).

In 1942, 18% of supply goes to arms pts building, in 1942 this drops to 15% - assume that is due to the more stable Soviet ToEs at that stage (also in my game all I've built in 1943 is some specialist artillery, eng brigades and mech corps).

Each pt of HI will support 1.6 pts of arms pts.
Each pt of HI produces on average 512 supply units in 1942 and 641 in 1943.

So if you have 135 HI, any APts over 200 are effectively wasted (this was the problem I got into in my game with SigUp).

If your game is in 1943 then 135 HI * 641 = 86,300 (plus LL). Lets say 30,000 goes on production, whats left needs to produce ammunition (very variable) and fortifications. I think the key ratio here is that ammo + forts cost about 35,000 per turn. So that would leave 21,000 to supply an army, by my ratio roughly 4.2 million.

To this needs to be added LL, and that you can reduce production substantially, certainly by mid-43 you don't need that many arms pts till the 1944 ToEs start. But given that you need all those other things (even forts to protect your advance), I don't think you could supply much over 5 million?

Great stuff thanks for you input, sorry your cat passed.

Hopefully I can provide you with more data and you can become the expert. Your the only one doing it so that makes you the Man.

Thanks again.

[M60A3TTS]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Great info.

Seeing your the expert in this area I have a question.

How big of an army would 135 hvy and 275 arm be able to support?

make no claims to expertise, just interested in trying to get some simple 'good enough' rules set out.

A few key ratios.

First total army size is a very good proxy for supply demanded within units. The correlation is about 94%, so while there is a lot going on, in truth you can rely on army size: unit supply consumption as the core ratio.

To put this into context, every 200 men want just over 1 unit of supply (its actually 1.01).

Equally very roughly, 34% of all supply goes into production (I have a rough average of 95% of potential production being produced so this could be a little higher or a fair bit lower).

In 1942, 18% of supply goes to arms pts building, in 1942 this drops to 15% - assume that is due to the more stable Soviet ToEs at that stage (also in my game all I've built in 1943 is some specialist artillery, eng brigades and mech corps).

Each pt of HI will support 1.6 pts of arms pts.
Each pt of HI produces on average 512 supply units in 1942 and 641 in 1943.

So if you have 135 HI, any APts over 200 are effectively wasted (this was the problem I got into in my game with SigUp).

If your game is in 1943 then 135 HI * 641 = 86,300 (plus LL). Lets say 30,000 goes on production, whats left needs to produce ammunition (very variable) and fortifications. I think the key ratio here is that ammo + forts cost about 35,000 per turn. So that would leave 21,000 to supply an army, by my ratio roughly 4.2 million.

To this needs to be added LL, and that you can reduce production substantially, certainly by mid-43 you don't need that many arms pts till the 1944 ToEs start. But given that you need all those other things (even forts to protect your advance), I don't think you could supply much over 5 million?

I really don't know what this means. I have 171 HI and 347 Arms.

The 347 arms factories produced 112,125 armaments. Supply required was 20% of number and that was what got delivered to the arms factories: 22,425 tons. So what was wasted?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Great info.

Seeing your the expert in this area I have a question.

How big of an army would 135 hvy and 275 arm be able to support?

make no claims to expertise, just interested in trying to get some simple 'good enough' rules set out.

A few key ratios.

First total army size is a very good proxy for supply demanded within units. The correlation is about 94%, so while there is a lot going on, in truth you can rely on army size: unit supply consumption as the core ratio.

To put this into context, every 200 men want just over 1 unit of supply (its actually 1.01).

Equally very roughly, 34% of all supply goes into production (I have a rough average of 95% of potential production being produced so this could be a little higher or a fair bit lower).

In 1942, 18% of supply goes to arms pts building, in 1942 this drops to 15% - assume that is due to the more stable Soviet ToEs at that stage (also in my game all I've built in 1943 is some specialist artillery, eng brigades and mech corps).

Each pt of HI will support 1.6 pts of arms pts.
Each pt of HI produces on average 512 supply units in 1942 and 641 in 1943.

So if you have 135 HI, any APts over 200 are effectively wasted (this was the problem I got into in my game with SigUp).

If your game is in 1943 then 135 HI * 641 = 86,300 (plus LL). Lets say 30,000 goes on production, whats left needs to produce ammunition (very variable) and fortifications. I think the key ratio here is that ammo + forts cost about 35,000 per turn. So that would leave 21,000 to supply an army, by my ratio roughly 4.2 million.

To this needs to be added LL, and that you can reduce production substantially, certainly by mid-43 you don't need that many arms pts till the 1944 ToEs start. But given that you need all those other things (even forts to protect your advance), I don't think you could supply much over 5 million?

I really don't know what this means. I have 171 HI and 347 Arms.

The 347 arms factories produced 112,125 armaments. Supply required was 20% of number and that was what got delivered to the arms factories: 22,425 tons. So what was wasted?

I think part of the problem is that any set of ratios are invariably crude as so much will vary according to the situation in a game.

In the game I was analysing, I had an average supply to ammo use of around 20,000 per turn in 1942/3 for 2 reasons. I had an army of 8.5 million and it was against the AI. The reason this is important is if the AI is dominant it will attack more than a human player will (esp with morale etc bonuses) and when it loses the initiative it will be weaker. So in combination that means far more combat than you see PBEM.

Also of course as the Soviet player you can control your ammo use, simply by not attacking.

All that means more supply to divert to feeding units etc. So there are numerous potential trade offs.

If I understand things right, arms pts are another area where the situation is important. First there does seem to be a cap on how much supply the production routine will allocate to arms pts. But equally arms pt production is on the basis of need. Due to the army size I had a long period (dec 41-aug 42) when I was in deficit each turn (ie had no arms pts reserves) and on average it was allocating around 22,000 supply to feed 352 arms pts factories. That sounds close to your position - not least I'm not sure if game settings affect production?

Key bit is that the HI:AP ratio is of more use for planning your industrial evacuation. There is no point ending up with a ratio of 1:2.5 when their will only be enough supply to sustain something in the range 1:1.6 .... 1:2.

[lowtech]

Spreadsheets. Dude! I'm like, trying to get away from all that stuff when I play games....[:D]

Very nice work. I'm still trying to get my head around all the admin stuff. Still haven't figured out the easiest way to handle all the support units shuffling.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: lowtech


Spreadsheets. Dude! I'm like, trying to get away from all that stuff when I play games....[:D]

Very nice work. I'm still trying to get my head around all the admin stuff. Still haven't figured out the easiest way to handle all the support units shuffling.

aye, I know [;)]

thats why I'm interesting in trying to get hold of a few basic ratios that you can then work with. Goal is to avoid doing something completely wrong, rather than the search for the perfect mix.

With the Soviets the 1941 Support Unit allocation is now so much easier with 1.08.03. As most of them move from the disbanded corps to Stavka, you can then re-allocate to the armies about T6-8 with some ease. My default model for 1941 is that most armies get 3 art, 2 sappers, 1 AA. I hold the heavier art back in Stavka for the winter offensive. Those defending Moscow and Leningrad get extras but you should be able to operate without raising too many new units till later in 1941.

Also by that stage you've probably got an idea which are the key sectors/commands and you can start to build up those armies (use the Shock Armies as a simple reminder).

[lowtech]

thats why I'm interesting in trying to get hold of a few basic ratios that you can then work with.

My nominee for Saint-o'-the-Year...[;)]

Goal is to avoid doing something completely wrong, rather than the search for the perfect mix.

To late! I've already screwed everything up... wait. You probably meant in the game and not in real life (tm)

My beef with the support stuff as well as the aircraft, is couldn't we have used the computer thingie to make the players' lives a bit easier? In my game with Chao45 I've screwed up a bit by being too lazy to bother with all of the attachments, artillery is indeed my friend and I've had some spectacular "bounces" as a result of not having any attached. Do we really need all the separate construction units and RAD, which btw almost NEVER functioned as discrete units. And don't get me started on the HQs.... [:)]
All sniveling aside, I really do appreciate your work.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: lowtech

thats why I'm interesting in trying to get hold of a few basic ratios that you can then work with.

My nominee for Saint-o'-the-Year...[;)]

Goal is to avoid doing something completely wrong, rather than the search for the perfect mix.

To late! I've already screwed everything up... wait. You probably meant in the game and not in real life (tm)

My beef with the support stuff as well as the aircraft, is couldn't we have used the computer thingie to make the players' lives a bit easier? In my game with Chao45 I've screwed up a bit by being too lazy to bother with all of the attachments, artillery is indeed my friend and I've had some spectacular "bounces" as a result of not having any attached. Do we really need all the separate construction units and RAD, which btw almost NEVER functioned as discrete units. And don't get me started on the HQs.... [:)]
All sniveling aside, I really do appreciate your work.

I think the problem with SUs is against the AI you can rely on the auto assign function (after all its what your opponent uses), but manual control just gives so much better results that if your opponent pays real attention you will find yourself slowly being mauled. Its a version of Pelton's point in another thread that small % gains (in that case morale from the most senior command levels) over 10s of turns and 100s of combats just add up.

My fixation with the Soviet supply system comes out of wanting to understand the implications of 1.08. Crudely, a Soviet player has to take more losses in 1941 to buy the time for more factory evacuations. I've lost 2.1m in prisoners in this game up the end of November - far more than I ever have before and, pre-1.08, I'd have said that was near fatal in terms of ability to survive.

So it seems as if the trade off: industry preservation/army loss - is important, but to make sense of what you can cope with you need some feel for what size of industry will fuel the post-1943 recovery (and keep you in the game up to that point).

Till we see a decent number of post-1.08 AARs reach mid/late game its all guess work and trying to interpret snippets of information.

[loki100]

Turns 22-23: 13 November – 26 November 1941

Mid November saw Soviet units begin a cautious advance, probing for the new German defensive lines. As destroyed towns and villages were re-occupied, Front reports to Stavka indicated they had fallen back to the lines they had occupied at the start of September.

The period from 13 – 15 November saw the last acts of the agony of Leningrad. The final defending units had held out for 4 weeks after the city was isolated but out of ammunition their defence collapsed.




(Admiralty Clock at the end of the battle)

By mid-November most minor rivers were frozen.



Equally, by 20 November, Soviet units of North West and Kalinin Fronts had re-established contact. A number of localised battles broke out as the Soviets sought to improve their positions in advance of the planned winter offensive.



Over the last six weeks, the Red Army had had chance to recover and build up.



Most front line armies were now at full strength and a large reserve of Siberian units was being held back around Moscow. Orders were sent out to raise a new Front command (misleading called the Volkhov so as to confuse the Germans as to its real location) to increase the striking power on the Moscow-Smolensk sector.


(Formations marked with * are the main attack armies, with mobile units and/or additional artillery and assault engineers. Those marked '-' have few if any combat formations attached).


(Soviet forces moving up to the front)

Slowly, as details of the German defensive lines filtered back to Stavka a plan for an ambitious counter-attack was put in place. Stavka identified a weak spot in the German lines in the Velikie-Luki sector. This might allow attacking Soviet units to break apart AGN and AGS and the liberation of Smolensk would be a powerful statement that the Soviet state had recovered from the shocks of the summer and autumn. The other main area of attack was the far south of the line where the goals were to recapture the Dniepr bend and relieve the siege of Odessa.








[1][3]

Secondary offensives were planned on the Volkhov to try and liberate Leningrad, towards Bryansk and towards Kiev. These were not expected to yield many gains but would help stretch the German defences and leave them unsure as to the real targets.

In the air, the VVS continued its campaign of bombing the Romanian oil fields. Production of specialist tactical bombers had been badly disrupted in the relocation of Soviet industry. As a result a number of new squadrons had been raised using the existing Mig-3 fighters but equipped with the same weaponry as the Sturmoviks.


[2]

[1] – in truth I have no geographical goals, any ground I take I will lose in 1942 and there are no German positions I really need to drive back. So this is primarily to build a cadre of Gds formations and to damage the German army. If Vigabrand keeps his armour and best infantry out of the line I can do more damage (and win more battles), if he commits them to stall me, then at least they will suffer attrition and fatigue.

[2] – this is an experiment, the Mig-3 is the only FB that carries rockets rather than bombs so I have tried to build ShAP units using them and let the LaGG-3s deploy as more conventional FB-F. At least it allows me to deploy far more ground attack aircraft than my limited number of Il-2 and Su-2 squadrons would allow.

At worst, I'll have a cadre of high morale squadrons I can convert to Il-2s when production recovers in mid-1942.

[3] – couldn't resist playing around with Sepia tinted maps

[morvael]

I see you like and rely on the change where units are attached to STAVKA upon parent HQ disband. It's actually a side effect of other changes (rewrite of disband/destroy functions), and it was reverted (fixed) to use the old way, so those units would end up in nearest (in terms of command chain) HQ (usually one up). Especially I don't like the current rule the most when it happens en masse, during the Soviet corps disband in July 1941. AI doesn't like it too. Will you be very angry at me to see this reverted?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: morvael

I see you like and rely on the change where units are attached to STAVKA upon parent HQ disband. It's actually a side effect of other changes (rewrite of disband/destroy functions), and it was reverted (fixed) to use the old way, so those units would end up in nearest (in terms of command chain) HQ (usually one up). Especially I don't like the current rule the most when it happens en masse, during the Soviet corps disband in July 1941. AI doesn't like it too. Will you be very angry at me to see this reverted?

I'm completely in awe at the improvements you are making ... [:)]

practically with the Soviets the only 'problem' to the old rule was in SW Front. Too many good SUs got trapped at Front level as those powerful rifle corps disband and you had to spend a fair few Admin Pts to get them to Stavka and back out. Other Fronts it was no real issue as fewer SUs went to the Front level and in any case you could recycle most of them within that Front level (so no admin pt cost).

Getting it all into Stavka just makes the book keeping aspect a bit easier as around T6 I just work across the map refilling each army with what I regard as the baseline SU allocation and then add more to the key sectors and keep others back to fill out the Shock Armies etc when they arrive.

But overall I feel that 1.08 makes managing Soviet admin pts a lot easier (some of this may be simply being more used to planning this aspect), so from that perspective its a useful saving but its not really critical either way

[morvael]

Why front level? They should go to armies as corps disband, at least in next version. That way armies retain all the original troops their subordinate corps had, which is the goal (less damage to command structure, especially good for AI).

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Why front level? They should go to armies as corps disband, at least in next version. That way armies retain all the original troops their subordinate corps had, which is the goal (less damage to command structure, especially good for AI).

mainly as SW Front at the start has far more independent corps than the others, so as they disband their SUs default to the Front. You probably don't want to return these to the Armies in the Front as its unlikely the N Ukraine is going to be your priority sector.

Goes back to pretty insane Soviet defensive/offensive plan from early 1941. SW Front as the most powerful formation as the Soviets reckoned any sane attacker would go for the Ukraine (food, raw materials, industry) not Moscow-Leningrad (essentially prestige targets) reflecting their experience of German operations from 1916-19. The Armies were meant to absorb the attack and the Corps were to give the Front commander the flexibility to then concentrate a counter-attack force.

May or may not have made sense in the abstract but it completely ignored their ineffectual command and control capacity and all they knew about the speed and disruption of modern warfare. After all the fundamental logic to Tukhachevsky's Deep Battle doctrine was that if you broke the front to a depth of 40km, you disrupted communications to a depth of 100km, if you got a 75-100km break through then communications effectively fell apart back to 200-250km. Ericksen is very good on the tensions between wanting to build Tukhachevsky's doctrine into the 1941 army re-organisation and retraining but having to do it in a way that didn't appear too obvious to Stalin et al.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: morvael

I see you like and rely on the change where units are attached to STAVKA upon parent HQ disband. It's actually a side effect of other changes (rewrite of disband/destroy functions), and it was reverted (fixed) to use the old way, so those units would end up in nearest (in terms of command chain) HQ (usually one up). Especially I don't like the current rule the most when it happens en masse, during the Soviet corps disband in July 1941. AI doesn't like it too. Will you be very angry at me to see this reverted?

I would prefer to see the SUs go into the next step up in the chain of command, when their HQ is disbanded. Coming back into the game from 3 years back, one of the very first things to strike me was 'losing' my SUs to Stavka.

I use Flavio's tactic of aggressively disbanding Corps HQs very early on. With the new rules where the units become Stavka controlled, it makes it much easier to restore C&C to the Soviet Armies. This is a change that the Soviets desperately need in 1941.

So, in short, I'm torn. I would like to see SUs go one step up in the chain, but would like to keep the ground units going to Stavka for the free CP reassigns.

By the way, excellent AAR, loki100!