Flavio v. James, GC 41.

Matrix Games Forums

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!

Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41

War in the East: Lost Battles is here!

Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play video

Lost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!

A sneak peek from Allied Corps!

Harpoon 3 ANWs Free Ultimate Update!

All good Deals always come in threes

Distant Worlds: Shadows Approaches!

Lost Battles AAR: Moscow 41

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Flavio v. James, GC 41.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> Flavio v. James, GC 41.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 1:12:03 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 5744
Joined: 9/9/2009
Status: offline

Northwest Front area: I do my usual checkerboard in depth. This should buy me a turn or two.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

Post #: 1

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 1:15:12 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 5744
Joined: 9/9/2009
Status: offline

Western Front: remnants do more checkerboarding between Minsk and the Dnepr, I begin to rail forces from the interior to lay down a defense line along the Smolensk landbridge. Another delaying action. Standard opening.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 2

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 1:23:46 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 5744
Joined: 9/9/2009
Status: offline

James doesn't go for the Lvov pocket in the south. This makes my life easier. Personally, if I was playing German, I'd open with a strong south push every time. He'll still catch some of the boys from Lvov, but not as many.

In contrast to the the other two fronts, there are enough forces here to defend up front to some extent. I'm not too worried about saving the SW Front armor and am completely happy to put it front and let it get beat up on. They are just tank brigades in waiting. I do like to try to get the motorized away if possible.

One thing I try to do everywhere: put zocs on all Germans possible. Especially the mobile forces.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 3

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 1:35:07 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 6960
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

Good luck Flavio.

You're aware that the routed units in the checkerboard don't have a ZOC, right?

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 4

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 1:38:17 PM

Ketza

Posts: 2016
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline

He seems to been planning on them rallying. Thats a nice defence It would be a real challenge. Not a big fan of the German south start tho. Thtas a big mistake.

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 5

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 1:44:26 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 5744
Joined: 9/9/2009
Status: offline

Pieter, betting on a rally.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 6

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 2:04:39 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 6960
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

But they can only rally in your logistics phase. They'll still be routed in his phase, unless routed units get two chances to rally each turn, which would be odd.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 2/11/2011 2:05:02 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 7

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 2:14:07 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 5744
Joined: 9/9/2009
Status: offline

I know this, but we can no longer rail routed units. So I just have to place them as best I can.

I put them in areas where a German advance won't do too much harm.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 8

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 3:20:10 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

He seems to been planning on them rallying. Thats a nice defence It would be a real challenge. Not a big fan of the German south start tho. Thtas a big mistake.

What exactly do you think is a mistake?

(in reply to Ketza)

Post #: 9

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 3:27:02 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 6960
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

I'd say: nothing is pocketed near Lvov and Tarnopol and nothing was isolated, which is a problem. Rovno also wasn't captured and the advance is rather narrow.

Splitting some divisions up into regiments is also a problem, due to the extra MP costs. If the regiments end up in multiple ZOC's, recombining is really costly in terms of MP's.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 10

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 3:53:54 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 5744
Joined: 9/9/2009
Status: offline

I was a little surprised he didn't make a grab for Rovno, yeah. Indeed, I've got a nice buffer zone in front of it now. He'll munch on my tank divisions in the area, but unlike a lot of Soviet players I don't place any great value on these.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 11

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 3:58:51 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Flavio, Pieter, Ketza? Have you been watching fashion news updates last couple weeks?

Tarnopol vector is all the rage in Axis AGS opening turns this winter season, and, having been on the receiving end on some Axis turns I can confirm is probably the best Axis can do. Much better than Rovno even though it may not be immediatelly obvious.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 12

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 4:03:59 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 5744
Joined: 9/9/2009
Status: offline

The Tarnopol push all the way to the Romanian border is a great play...with the extra panzer corps thrown in to do it.

What I'm less convinced about is a push to Tarnopol that falls short of the Romanian border with AGS units only and at the same leaves Rovno alone. If you're gonna do Tarnopol, go all in like Q-ball does it.

Mynok tried something similar to this opening in the AGS thread in the war room forum. Which I think can be countered.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 13

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 4:12:23 PM

Bletchley_Geek

Posts: 2113
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Flavio, Pieter, Ketza? Have you been watching fashion news updates last couple weeks? Tarnopol vector is all the rage in Axis AGS opening turns this winter season, and, having been on the receiving end on some Axis turns I can confirm is probably the best Axis can do. Much better than Rovno even though it may not be immediatelly obvious.

There's a very nice rail line connecting Lvov - Tarnopol - Proskurov - Vinnitsa. A strong push along that axis splits into two groups the Soviet forces in the Ukraine. The fact that he will have strong Soviet forces on one of his flanks is not an issue at all, he can parry any counterattacks with infantry.

Securing that rail line also allows Axis players a great deal of flexibility: once he gets to Vinnitsa he can strike NE towards Kiev, E towards Cherkassy or SE to the Black Sea.

_____________________________

Real men go to war on Real tanks

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 14

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 4:19:23 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 6960
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

Either go all the way to the border, like I and others did, or try a more conservative pocket, but this "no pocket" opening is rather weak. It's weak because no units are isolated and thus nothing will surrender on turn 2, and because he'll get to the Romanian border on turn two now which is the same as with a Lvov or Tarnopol pocket. Yes, he did cut the rail line, but that can be done with limited forces and a Lvov/Kovel pocket. As many units can still move to the Proskurov area, there's a chance he'll rout some divisions out of the pocket he's trying to create.

Flavio, did you make any successful attacks?

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 2/11/2011 4:20:13 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)

Post #: 15

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 4:22:12 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 5744
Joined: 9/9/2009
Status: offline

No attacks. I almost never attack on turn 1. The mobility just isn't there, Soviet MPs are crippled by the surprise attack.

Turn 2...that's when I start looking to do stuff.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 16

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 4:33:06 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 6960
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

I've made 4 thus far, two of which were successful. One on a Panzer division regiment and one against a security division with forces west of Lvov. The guys near Lvov are doomed anyway, might as well attack with them. An attack against another security division and another Panzer division regiment failed.

I'm seriously considering moving/railing Tank and motorized divisions to the rear and setting them to static. If they surrender or shatter, you can lose over 1000 vehicles per division. That's just not worth it. A bigger motorpool will allow for more mobile forces later on.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 2/11/2011 5:51:48 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 17

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 5:35:23 PM

kirkgregerson

Posts: 506
Joined: 4/9/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I've made 4 thus far, two of which were successful. One on a Panzer division regiment and one against a security division with forces west of Lvov. The guys near Lvov are doomed anyway, might as well attack with them. An attack against another security division and another Panzer division regiment failed.

I seriously considering moving/railing Tank and motorized divisions to the rear and setting them to static. If they surrender or shatter, you can lose over 1000 vehicles per division. That's just not worth it. A bigger motorpool will allow for more mobile forces later on.

Lose 1000 vehicle from motor pool? I thought these mobile units had more intrinsic vehicles and thus did not effect your motor pool?

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 18

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 5:56:24 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 6960
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

Those intrinsic vehicles are still a part of the total, which is motor pool+vehicles in units, so if you lose them in the units, they can no longer be in the motor pool. If you set the units to static or if they require less vehicles after a TOE change, the vehicles are returned to the pool and you can use them again.

I'm mostly looking at vehicle totals, not just the motor pool. There's little reason to waste 1000 vehicles by allowing a division to be pocketed. For every near full strength Tank or motorized division you lose, you lose vehicles that could fill about 20 Rifle divisions.

Vehicle production plummets after 1941 and the impact of Lend-Lease takes a while to be felt, so the mobile units you save in 1941 will indirectly allow your mid and late war offensives to be stronger because you have the vehicles for more mobile units than if you would not save the units in 1941.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to kirkgregerson)

Post #: 19

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 7:21:02 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 5744
Joined: 9/9/2009
Status: offline

I've never felt I needed those trucks from tank divisions for the mobile forces I build later on. Going static with motorized units is enough and far more efficient from an AP standpoint. Rooting all your tank divisions on top of that for some theoretical truck advantage 2 years away is getting into Rube Goldberg territory.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 20

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 7:25:26 PM

Ketza

Posts: 2016
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline

I would point out my reasonings of why the Axis opening turn in AGS was weak but others have done so already.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 21

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 7:28:07 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 6960
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

After thinking about it for an hour or so, I think I'm going to disband some of the Tank divisions.

You have far more than your tank pool and production can support, you don't really need them as brigades as including converting Tank divisions, you'll end up with something like 110 Tank brigades by the time you can create corps and generally 30 Tank corps is sort of the limit, and if you reduce the number of Tank divisions you can keep the others reasonably up to strength for the ~11 turns you can use them before they start downgrading to brigade status. You also have lots of divisions that start at around 1 CV with no hope of getting the tanks they need, and those will be pretty much useless until their TOE switch, after which they'll be pretty much useless as brigades.

That way, maybe the Soviets can actually launch some attacks with them instead of treating them as speedbumps.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 2/11/2011 7:29:30 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 22

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 7:33:59 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 5744
Joined: 9/9/2009
Status: offline

I stop at 24 tank corps, myself. But I like having the extra tank brigades around later on for merging into beat up tank corps. A trick I use a lot in the 43 scenario, in fact. Soviets can burn through an amazing number of tanks late in the game.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 23

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 7:58:50 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 6960
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

24x3=72, so you could disband around 20 Tank divisions and still have room for Tank brigades to merge into Tank corps.

The Tank brigades have a maximum of around 50 tanks in their TOE until November 1943, the 40 or so surplus Tank brigades that you don't merge contain around 2000 tanks that could otherwise have been used by the Tank corps. Merging the Tank brigades into the Tank corps thus essentially cures a problem caused by the presence of the Tank brigades, although if you did indeed somehow blow through 2000 AFV's in a single turn against Bob, that's just a very temporary fix.

I guess I'm not really thinking like a Soviet commander. Even when playing as the Soviets, I prefer a slim, streamlined and efficient army instead of a huge but mediocre mob.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 24

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 8:05:10 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 5744
Joined: 9/9/2009
Status: offline

Pieter, the thing is, merging the brigades allows you to keep pushing the spearhead. You are not necessarily going to have a converted rail line nearby to move a beat up tank corps to, you might have to march a good distance back. By feeding tank brigades at the very front itself, they can get back into action a bit more quickly.

Bob lost about half the amount of AFVs I did that turn, btw. We both had losses well into the 6 figures in terms of manpower. It's an incredibly bloody game. I'm abusing the hell out of the +1 attack business in human wave attacks to get things moving, to the point where I'm wondering if it is overpowered even in 1943, despite my previous opinion that it didn't matter at that point. If the Sov is reckless and willing to burn out the Red Army to crack a strong German line on a broad front, this +1 rule actually comes into play even then. Bob changed his defensive tactics in this game and is presenting much stronger forward defenses.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 2/11/2011 8:08:18 PM >

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 25

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 8:49:39 PM

Haudrauf1962

Posts: 402
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Plymouth, MA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

After thinking about it for an hour or so, I think I'm going to disband some of the Tank divisions.

You have far more than your tank pool and production can support, you don't really need them as brigades as including converting Tank divisions, you'll end up with something like 110 Tank brigades by the time you can create corps and generally 30 Tank corps is sort of the limit, and if you reduce the number of Tank divisions you can keep the others reasonably up to strength for the ~11 turns you can use them before they start downgrading to brigade status. You also have lots of divisions that start at around 1 CV with no hope of getting the tanks they need, and those will be pretty much useless until their TOE switch, after which they'll be pretty much useless as brigades.

That way, maybe the Soviets can actually launch some attacks with them instead of treating them as speedbumps.

Isn't that making units static to avoid destruction of vehicles a bit gamey? In reality those vehicles could not be beamed to the East so easily, so they would probably fall in German hands anyway.

_____________________________

Haudrauf

Life is too short to drink bad wine ;-)

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 26

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 9:15:34 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 6960
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

The motor pool is abstracted at the moment, and we don't have the option of repurposing divisions into another type or a smaller type. The Axis eventually need to set units to static too to sustain an offensive, the Soviets can do the same thing. You lose the combat effectiveness of the unit and get some vehicles in return, it's not gamey in the sense that it only provides a benefit, as you can't really use the static unit.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Haudrauf1962)

Post #: 27

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 10:27:52 PM

Klydon

Posts: 1873
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

The trucks and vehicles deal is why I have been harping on preserving the Russian armor/motorized divisions. I disbanded a couple of tank divisions that I knew I could not get out long term and did not want to blow the rail cap on. The other units I have on digging duty and use as a back stop line, depending on what shape they are in. The motorized divisions go find a city someplace and start digging. As soon as it hits level 2 fortification, the motorized unit gets put in static. My first game, I did some of the armored divisions this way as well, but it hasn't been worth it since I was not really hurting on command points and it costs more AP to reactivate them after they flip over to brigades. When the motorized divisions flip over to rifle divisions, they are very cheap (4 AP usually) to reactivate.

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 28

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 10:28:14 PM

pompack

Posts: 2450
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

After thinking about it for an hour or so, I think I'm going to disband some of the Tank divisions.

You have far more than your tank pool and production can support, you don't really need them as brigades as including converting Tank divisions, you'll end up with something like 110 Tank brigades by the time you can create corps and generally 30 Tank corps is sort of the limit, and if you reduce the number of Tank divisions you can keep the others reasonably up to strength for the ~11 turns you can use them before they start downgrading to brigade status. You also have lots of divisions that start at around 1 CV with no hope of getting the tanks they need, and those will be pretty much useless until their TOE switch, after which they'll be pretty much useless as brigades.

That way, maybe the Soviets can actually launch some attacks with them instead of treating them as speedbumps.

Isn't that making units static to avoid destruction of vehicles a bit gamey? In reality those vehicles could not be beamed to the East so easily, so they would probably fall in German hands anyway.

Well, I can rail them to the east and use them to start digging in or I can ground them and rail the vehicles east. The difference: in real life less strain on the rail system. Or I can rail them east and then ground them. A lot of valid choices and not gamey at all IMHO

(in reply to Haudrauf1962)

Post #: 29

RE: Flavio v. James, GC 41. - 2/11/2011 10:30:13 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 6960
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

quote:

it costs more AP to reactivate them after they flip over to brigades

That would depend on how many vehicles they have left when they are about to be set to static. Generally, you should be able to at least break-even, but of course there's a lot more to gain with motorized divisions.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 30