Der Ivan kommt!

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

Incidentally, those "villages" all have more than 50.000 inhabitants

Never trust Soviet numbers [:D]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937)

Don't shoot the messanger-and the statician.

Maybe the developers inflated the numbers for WITE?????? /shrug

[Dinglir]

Turn four.

[MattFL]

Saw that coming in the North for sure.

Also my guess was Gorodok only in center (unless he got aggressive which clearly he didn't even really attack at all). His panzers should have more fuel in that area next turn, so trouble coming I think.

Here is my prediction for next turn. Now that his infantry is up and can blow open holes in the line he will drive his panzers E and bag your entire defense there. Shoulda run, I disagree that you are strong enough there to challenge the Germans in a fight and he's going to take that area regardless of what you do, so why lose 10-20 divisions in the process. As for towns, every town you mentioned except Smolensk with either be German or be encircled by the Germans. I can't see his units, but if his breakthrough at PSKOV is any indication of what the Germans are capable of, you are potentially facing catastrophe. Really just depends on how many pz/mot he has there and how much movement they get.

[M60A3TTS]

That north situation does look worrisome as your opponent has a couple viable ways to go, including the right hook east of Ilmen.

[MattFL]

Has Ivan stopped coming?

[Dinglir]

ORIGINAL: MattFL
Has Ivan stopped coming?

Not as far as I know.

Ivan is just not coming very fast.

I generally take around a week to do my turns, and I gave turn eleven to Huw on friday (as I recall).

I guess he is probably off on easter holiday or some such, and thus unable to do turns for the time being.

[Dinglir]

Turn five.

[Telemecus]

Dinglir
I have also conducted my first air attack with U-2VS this turn

You made us wait - but I expect they will be coming thick and fast soon!

[Dinglir]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

Dinglir
I have also conducted my first air attack with U-2VS this turn

You made us wait - but I expect they will be coming thick and fast soon!

It is a spoiler alert, but I think the AA changes has made the U-2VS a lot less effective.

In the old days it was a question of forcing the Luftwaffe to stop flying during the Soviet turn and then using the U-2VS as daylight bombers. Axis ground losses would soon become appalling. Today, with the new AA rules, I guess that flying U-2VS during dayligt is the equivalent of suicide.

This is as it should be. An aircraft this slow during daylight would be easy prey for even a German MG34 or MG42.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

Dinglir
I have also conducted my first air attack with U-2VS this turn

You made us wait - but I expect they will be coming thick and fast soon!

It is a spoiler alert, but I think the AA changes has made the U-2VS a lot less effective.

In the old days it was a question of forcing the Luftwaffe to stop flying during the Soviet turn and then using the U-2VS as daylight bombers. Axis ground losses would soon become appalling. Today, with the new AA rules, I guess that flying U-2VS during dayligt is the equivalent of suicide.

This is as it should be. An aircraft this slow during daylight would be easy prey for even a German MG34 or MG42.

Ah that is interesting - and correct!

The only thing is the night bombing was also nerfed - so any prospect whatsoever of using it in the historical night harassment role is also gone. Perhaps the nerf to night bombing should be revisited. Given it should never be too powerful - but at the moment it makes the night side of what was the historical war pointless here?

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

ORIGINAL: Telemecus



You made us wait - but I expect they will be coming thick and fast soon!

It is a spoiler alert, but I think the AA changes has made the U-2VS a lot less effective.

In the old days it was a question of forcing the Luftwaffe to stop flying during the Soviet turn and then using the U-2VS as daylight bombers. Axis ground losses would soon become appalling. Today, with the new AA rules, I guess that flying U-2VS during dayligt is the equivalent of suicide.

This is as it should be. An aircraft this slow during daylight would be easy prey for even a German MG34 or MG42.

Ah that is interesting - and correct!

The only thing is the night bombing was also nerfed - so any prospect whatsoever of using it in the historical night harassment role is also gone. Perhaps the nerf to night bombing should be revisited. Given it should never be too powerful - but at the moment it makes the night side of what was the historical war pointless here?

Daylight bombing by u-2's is "death". I fly mine at night 100% of the time current game and have had some pretty nice results. Granted AA shoots down a METRIC-BUTTLOAD of the planes but I am fine with that since I have a surplus of U-2's, almost 1,000 as replacements. Those extra loses to the Germans add up as you said long ago Dinglir in your post about the U-2s. Granted I get a range of results especially if the Germans are in level 2 entrenchments or higher. But in level 1 or lower entrenchments the U-2's eat Germans up. So boils down to how you use them.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

These two bombings at night were done on level 2 entrenchments.

[Dinglir]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
Granted I get a range of results especially if the Germans are in level 2 entrenchments or higher. But in level 1 or lower entrenchments the U-2's eat Germans up. So boils down to how you use them.

This touches on another item which I am struggling quite a lot with these days: Which calibers (on guns) or which payloads (on aircraft) to choose for different fortification levels.

For now, I am pretty much going with

Fort 1: 100kg GP bombs or 75mm guns
Fort 2: 250kg GP bombs or 100mm guns
Fort 3: 1000kg bombs or 150mm guns

However, I have no real data or math to support these choices, and I am considering if I can find some proper way of calculating some values to use for an informed choice.

Ie: If you buy Soviet Gun brigades for the first winter, should you choose the one with 72 75mm guns or the one with 36 150mm tubes? One is probably better for fighting in the open, while the other is better for punching through heavily defended positions.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: Dinglir
This touches on another item which I am struggling quite a lot with these days: Which calibers (on guns) or which payloads (on aircraft) to choose for different fortification levels.

For now, I am pretty much going with

Fort 1: 100kg GP bombs or 75mm guns
Fort 2: 250kg GP bombs or 100mm guns
Fort 3: 1000kg bombs or 150mm guns

However, I have no real data or math to support these choices, and I am considering if I can find some proper way of calculating some values to use for an informed choice.

Ie: If you buy Soviet Gun brigades for the first winter, should you choose the one with 72 75mm guns or the one with 36 150mm tubes? One is probably better for fighting in the open, while the other is better for punching through heavily defended positions.

Crackaces spent ages testing this on message level 7 and pretty much came up with that conclusion. Lower calibre guns are better attacking in the open OR defending (which seems to always have the attacker in the open) as they have a much greater rate of fire. Nebs/Rockets seem to be like low calibre guns no matter what their size. In the case of the Axis the neb regiments might be preferred only because they are one of the few regimental size indirect fire units so the number of "tubes" makes up for the lack of blast. But yes once you are onto forts etc you need the blast from larger calibre guns. You can see a pdf about this in post 729 here tm.asp?m=4250683&mpage=25

Also they found that anti aircraft guns of all calibres, not just the 88mm, are effective in ground combat. I was sceptical that this was true historically as I assumed you would want to use an expensive quad cannon on expensive aircraft - not cavalry say. But timmyab found this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48zE-hRAYEA that actually describes the use of German anti aircraft guns in a ground role - and the manufacture of munitions for them to do this. So the game engine is right to say that anti aircraft guns are also effective in ground combat.

[Dinglir]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
Crackaces spent ages testing this on message level 7 and pretty much came up with that conclusion. Lower calibre guns are better attacking in the open OR defending (which seems to always have the attacker in the open) as they have a much greater rate of fire. Nebs/Rockets seem to be like low calibre guns no matter what their size. In the case of the Axis the neb regiments might be preferred only because they are one of the few regimental size indirect fire units so the number of "tubes" makes up for the lack of blast. But yes once you are onto forts etc you need the blast from larger calibre guns. You can see a pdf about this in post 729 here tm.asp?m=4250683&mpage=25

Also they found that anti aircraft guns of all calibres, not just the 88mm, are effective in ground combat. I was sceptical that this was true historically as I assumed you would want to use an expensive quad cannon on expensive aircraft - not cavalry say. But timmyab found this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48zE-hRAYEA that actually describes the use of German anti aircraft guns in a ground role - and the manufacture of munitions for them to do this. So the game engine is right to say that anti aircraft guns are also effective in ground combat.

Great link!

I am not sure the RoF works as described though (that having 12 RoF will mean 12 shots taken). I think it is more of a modifier, which will affect the chance of the gun taking another shot. Something like: Gun will take another shot if random(x)*Previous shots < 10 + RoF.

So the German LeFH 18 105mm gun with a RoF of seven would get a second shot if random(x) < 17 and a third shot if random(x) < 8.5.

Meanwhile the 20mm Quad (FlakVierling, I think it's nicknamed) with a Rof of 400 would automaticaly get 40 shots off before even a roll of 10 would stop it from firing again. Quite deadly against infantry in the open.

This also fits the guns with a negative RoF. The German 600mm Geraet 040 mortar has a RoF of -10, making it impossible for that gun to get off more than one shot pr combat if using theabove formula. If simply assuming the RoF is the number of shots taken in combat, this gun would never fire.

All this is obviously just guesswork on my part, since I have no idea what the actual formulas behind the game code is.

As for using AA in ground roles, the Germans especially excelled in this capacity designing most of their AA guns with optics and low enough traverse to be used in ground roles. The obvious example is the 88mm gun, but most other AA guns were used this way as well.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
Crackaces spent ages testing this on message level 7 and pretty much came up with that conclusion. Lower calibre guns are better attacking in the open OR defending (which seems to always have the attacker in the open) as they have a much greater rate of fire. Nebs/Rockets seem to be like low calibre guns no matter what their size. In the case of the Axis the neb regiments might be preferred only because they are one of the few regimental size indirect fire units so the number of "tubes" makes up for the lack of blast. But yes once you are onto forts etc you need the blast from larger calibre guns. You can see a pdf about this in post 729 here tm.asp?m=4250683&mpage=25

Also they found that anti aircraft guns of all calibres, not just the 88mm, are effective in ground combat. I was sceptical that this was true historically as I assumed you would want to use an expensive quad cannon on expensive aircraft - not cavalry say. But timmyab found this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48zE-hRAYEA that actually describes the use of German anti aircraft guns in a ground role - and the manufacture of munitions for them to do this. So the game engine is right to say that anti aircraft guns are also effective in ground combat.

Great link!

I am not sure the RoF works as described though (that having 12 RoF will mean 12 shots taken). I think it is more of a modifier, which will affect the chance of the gun taking another shot. Something like: Gun will take another shot if random(x)*Previous shots < 10 + RoF.

So the German LeFH 18 105mm gun with a RoF of seven would get a second shot if random(x) < 17 and a third shot if random(x) < 8.5.

Meanwhile the 20mm Quad (FlakVierling, I think it's nicknamed) with a Rof of 400 would automaticaly get 40 shots off before even a roll of 10 would stop it from firing again. Quite deadly against infantry in the open.

This also fits the guns with a negative RoF. The German 600mm Geraet 040 mortar has a RoF of -10, making it impossible for that gun to get off more than one shot pr combat if using theabove formula. If simply assuming the RoF is the number of shots taken in combat, this gun would never fire.

All this is obviously just guesswork on my part, since I have no idea what the actual formulas behind the game code is.

As for using AA in ground roles, the Germans especially excelled in this capacity designing most of their AA guns with optics and low enough traverse to be used in ground roles. The obvious example is the 88mm gun, but most other AA guns were used this way as well.

To do is to be -- Jean-Paul Sartre

This seems more logical than my conclusions of ROF! Thanks! I always questioned my initial thoughts on ROF and posted a question that was never answered by the forum. This is the best answer yet.

On the 20mm quad .. yes .. I used them extensively vs. Cavalry <smile> in 8MP. There is only one drawback. The randomness of matchup's means you really have to think before you attach certain devices. For example, if the Soviets have lots of "tubes" handy it becomes almost certain that the 20mm will match up with something that will disable or kill... so after a few encounters Tele was pointing out the low TO&E in the flak units. At the same time we discovered we needed flak to protect from ground bombing …The 88's suffered a similar fate However, I attached heavy LW flak to HQ's I thought would be engaged with Soviet armor and given the SUM total of devices to hit, the number of shots, and the density of tanks for a particular combat .. I got higher levels of tank kills. Yes the Soviets have lots of medium T34 tanks .. but it was draining on the light tanks and certainly it takes a couple of turns to refit leaving an unready unit.

One thing I noted about ROF -10.. the siege devices all have a ROF -10 .. I find that the device fires just after the air phase. On the attack I noted the effects on fort level immediately . So I have seen 2 600mm devices take fort level from 3 to 0 in one fell swoop. (Tambov in 8MP). So the fort reduction at the beginning makes every attack far more effective. Combine that with 305mm rockets .. 210mm .. well Sevastopol can be taken down in a turn.

Great Post!

[MattFL]

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
Granted I get a range of results especially if the Germans are in level 2 entrenchments or higher. But in level 1 or lower entrenchments the U-2's eat Germans up. So boils down to how you use them.

This touches on another item which I am struggling quite a lot with these days: Which calibers (on guns) or which payloads (on aircraft) to choose for different fortification levels.

For now, I am pretty much going with

Fort 1: 100kg GP bombs or 75mm guns
Fort 2: 250kg GP bombs or 100mm guns
Fort 3: 1000kg bombs or 150mm guns

However, I have no real data or math to support these choices, and I am considering if I can find some proper way of calculating some values to use for an informed choice.

Ie: If you buy Soviet Gun brigades for the first winter, should you choose the one with 72 75mm guns or the one with 36 150mm tubes? One is probably better for fighting in the open, while the other is better for punching through heavily defended positions.

My goodness, no wonder it takes you a week to play a turn! [:D]

I honestly can say I've never once looked at individual load outs on planes and decided that X hex is better for these planes than Y hex. Seems it would be 10 x more brain damage for a marginal improvement in the result. For arty, heavier batteries against higher forts is basically what I've always done and probably won't ever change that or even revisit it at all.

I really enjoy your AAR's, they're very well done for sure. Very interested to see what HJ does on Turn 6..... Each turn you update I expect you to be punished on HJ's following turn. So either I'm misreading the situation around the Land bridge or HJ isn't capitalizing on opportunities. I also think he made a mistake with his Turn 4 breakthrough by not just committing to the direct assault on Lenningrad and sending that MOT division east south of Lake Ilmen. He probably could have taken Novgorod on Turn 4 had he gone that way and would be in a better position than he is now. He should totally commit to either the right hook or the direct assault and stop messing about with both, just divides his strength up.

M

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: MattFL

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
Granted I get a range of results especially if the Germans are in level 2 entrenchments or higher. But in level 1 or lower entrenchments the U-2's eat Germans up. So boils down to how you use them.

This touches on another item which I am struggling quite a lot with these days: Which calibers (on guns) or which payloads (on aircraft) to choose for different fortification levels.

For now, I am pretty much going with

Fort 1: 100kg GP bombs or 75mm guns
Fort 2: 250kg GP bombs or 100mm guns
Fort 3: 1000kg bombs or 150mm guns

However, I have no real data or math to support these choices, and I am considering if I can find some proper way of calculating some values to use for an informed choice.

Ie: If you buy Soviet Gun brigades for the first winter, should you choose the one with 72 75mm guns or the one with 36 150mm tubes? One is probably better for fighting in the open, while the other is better for punching through heavily defended positions.

My goodness, no wonder it takes you a week to play a turn! [:D]

I honestly can say I've never once looked at individual load outs on planes and decided that X hex is better for these planes than Y hex. Seems it would be 10 x more brain damage for a marginal improvement in the result. For arty, heavier batteries against higher forts is basically what I've always done and probably won't ever change that or even revisit it at all.

I really enjoy your AAR's, they're very well done for sure. Very interested to see what HJ does on Turn 6..... Each turn you update I expect you to be punished on HJ's following turn. So either I'm misreading the situation around the Land bridge or HJ isn't capitalizing on opportunities. I also think he made a mistake with his Turn 4 breakthrough by not just committing to the direct assault on Lenningrad and sending that MOT division east south of Lake Ilmen. He probably could have taken Novgorod on Turn 4 had he gone that way and would be in a better position than he is now. He should totally commit to either the right hook or the direct assault and stop messing about with both, just divides his strength up.

M

I believe this game is designed to give the player who masters the details a very distinct advantage over a player who does not. Furthermore each side has unique details. Not understanding this can end up with misunderstandings such as how night bombing got nerfed out of existence.

[MattFL]

I believe this game is designed to give the player who masters the details a very distinct advantage over a player who does not. Furthermore each side has unique details. Not understanding this can end up with misunderstandings such as how night bombing got nerfed out of existence.

There is probably some truth to that given players of very advanced, equal skill. However some details are far more important than other details (supply, movement costs, construction, oob management, etc...). And none of it is more important than being able to put your units in the right hexes and having the vision to see the game several turns in advance. In the end, you still have to "play' the game and all of the understanding in the world of the nitty gritty game engine details doesn't make a player a better "player" in this latter respect. This is just a general observation, not directed at any one in particular.

I guess what I'm saying is that playing the game well is a totally unrelated skill to understanding the game. Obviously someone like HLYA who have both a deep understanding of the engine and are clearly an experienced, gifted wargamer are going to be hard to beat. But i'd bet anything it's his skill "playing" the game and understanding strategic and tactical concepts that is far more important to his success than his understanding of every facet of the game engine.

[Dinglir]

I am glad you like the reports.

ORIGINAL: MattFL
I guess what I'm saying is that playing the game well is a totally unrelated skill to understanding the game.

I actually disagree on that one. Granted, most games are won by having a better "tactical" understanding of the game than your opponent. If you do, you win.

But with two experienced and slow playing opponents, the game will be fought out over 200 turns. Having a better understanding of what weapon systems do which jobs well, is a necessity for getting ahead in the long run.

I would argue that the reason HardLuck is so hard to beat is his understanding of WHY some things work and others don't. He will know where to place each individual division for the optimum performance and he will know which SU's and which generals to use in a given situation.

As each turn is literally made up of thousands of choices by each player, making just a little fewer "less than optimal" choices than your opponent will make you a winner.

And to be clear, I believe HardLuck is making plenty of mistakes in every game he takes. But if he gets 62% of his choices right, he will win if his oppoenent only gets 45%.