Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & Shot
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Rhine or Ruin

 
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 >> RE: Rhine or Ruin Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 1:55:51 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6369
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Janh, he isn't doing a pure runaway. He's running in the south and defending up north and letting the center thicken up with reinforcements. This is the way to do it.

The Red Army can do a forward defense in 1941...but only on limited parts of the front. The North is the obvious place to make a stand due to terrain and other considerations. The south is quite indefensible imo.

That said, I don't think running away this far down south so soon is a good idea. You can delay a bit down there and give yourself more evacuation time. You want to avoid getting into a situation where Tula, the Donbas and Moscow are simultaneously threatened, this will overwhelm your rail capacity. All those are multiturn projects.

If timed correctly the entire south can be stripped of factories by turn 10 all the way from Voronezh to Rostov, leaving you with just the Moscow-Tula complex to worry about. (Leningrad should be evacuated by this point as well.)


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 31
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 2:52:13 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3040
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

I think the point Michael wants to establish with this match is that even if he just runs for the hills and losses the South, Moscow and Leningrad in 41, he can still stall the 42 Axis summer offensive and achieve a Soviet Major Victory before May 45. Although in that case he shouldn't be holding onto anything except his army. I doubt it will work, but I am curious to see the result. So far I think he forgoes the chance even for a minor victory if the runs in 41, although at least his army may be in better shape for some counteroffensives in contrast to the common state when the Axis player just overruns the Soviets, brute force.


Question here is IMO and while i consider Glavca from reading other AARs in the upper tier of german players is how he reacts, or not as the case might be. This leaves me some what concerned in what iim seeing so far. Running and holding North isnt exactly a new thing. It seems to me from reading even top tier german player AARs that they usually so far just continue with the same strategy and doesnt react very well if at all to the changed conditions. I mean alrdy by turn 4 if not before, Michaels strategy is very obvious if u do just some recon.
This begs the question, should u redeploy ur forces. Do u if u continue with the current force allocation just play into the that russian strategy. Who is now reacting to whom?
Do 2 german pz armies in the center accomplish enough with the supply they recieve in their current location, could they be better used in other places. Come back later when supply is better.
Same question should be asked about AGS force allocation and use. Should ur objectives change. Are there other things than russian forces to catch down there and if so how do u change ur operational behavior. If u cant catch any thing what should that do to ur force allocation.
Not that i wouldnt/dont necesarrily make the same mistake, but even ppl like top tier players like Peltons AAR when faced with a new opponent strategy it doesnt seem that ppl. Take a mental pause, thinking about the implications of the different strategy u face. What if any thing does it change how i should act. Instead of ok this strategy has worked for me the last 5 times so i just continue with that.
Obviously this isnt easy, but the willingness/ability not to be in self imposed boxes, is prolly the most importand trait in top players.

Im also critical of Micheals decision to abandon the lower Dniper alrdy, simply cuz its not necesarry yet. If and underlining if the german side reacts to this correctly, it could interfere with the russian evac schedule. Not that there are evidence as of yet that Glavca indeed seems to go that way.

quote:


What would be much much more important in my opinion would be an AAR against one of those extremely aggressive and fast Axis players that shows that given the present conditions and rule sets it is possible to survive as Russian by holding forward and counterattacking vigilantly, as history proved it to be possible. In the end, this whole discussion isn't about whether it is the smartest strategy to withdraw in 41/42 summers as Russian, or in the 41 winter as Axis, but whether there exists a strategy or the means that would allow a good Soviet player to hold something like historical lines by December 41 and have enough means (AP points, pools units) to start a blizzard offensive and also conquer Berlin in the long run.
If Michael played an AAR where he deliberately fought for pretty much every hex, and counterattacked despite heavy casualties, and yet still were in control over Moscow and Leningrad by the time he would launch a powerful blizzard counteroffensive (if...), this would make a really important point. However, thus far nobody succeeded to prove this point...


Exactly, but IMO the question is alrdy answered. When u in all of '41 as a russian player recieves less manpower than the russian historicly mobillized in july 41 alone, the game turn into a pure force presevation contest for the russian side. While at the same time give as little territory as possible, but the first is much more importand than the latter.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 7/3/2012 3:07:56 PM >

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 32
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 3:01:50 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Looks like a good overall strategy.As someone else has already said though, it looks like more of a strategy to avoid losing than to actually win the game.I confidently predict that one of you will quit due to boredom long before May 45.Simply making it necessary to evacuate a proportion of the heavy industry would probably prevent this sort of runaway in the South from being a viable strategy.

I think Walloc's point is very valid here.
With the benefit of knowing the precise Soviet positions I think I would semi-abandon the drive on Leningrad and transfer 56th pz corps and half of AGN's aircraft to the center at this point.In fact if you can sense that your opponent is defending Leningrad to this extent then it's probably best to do it on turn 3 or 4, keeping 41st pz in the North to tie down the defenders.
If people are that determined to hold Leningrad then it can wait for 42 as far as I'm concerned.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 33
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 3:41:51 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

If Michael played an AAR where he deliberately fought for pretty much every hex, and counterattacked despite heavy casualties, and yet still were in control over Moscow and Leningrad by the time he would launch a powerful blizzard counteroffensive (if...), this would make a really important point. However, thus far nobody succeeded to prove this point...


But to demonstrate that historical case would require a German player who arbitrarily decided to siege Leningrad instead of storm it early on, as well as a German player who decided to divert AGC south while it outnumbered the defenders between it and Moscow, only turning back toward Moscow when the calendar was too far along to complete the task. In short, historical outcomes rely on historical behavior by BOTH sides. Pardon me, but I never thought that was the point of these types of games. The point is always to try and do it better.

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 34
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 4:17:31 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5884
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

You might temp the Axis to do the extended right hook to Onega :)

As to the steamroller, perhaps the MP cost of assaulting forts should be higher? Or perhaps the "entering the ZOC cost of a fort" is higher? |The rationale being well planned arcs of fire, fire support, minefields etc. Then the Armored Corps have a role as only they might have enough MP to do attacks on a second line of defence.



Good idea seeing forts are non-factors where the fighting takes plase because of sappers ect.

The 2nd line of defence really doesn't need to be attacked, because from late 42 to 45 its about pounding down german infantry morale. Once you get 20-30 infantry divisions morale pounded down the flood gates are open.

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Farfarer)
Post #: 35
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 4:19:03 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1223
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

But to demonstrate that historical case would require a German player who arbitrarily decided to siege Leningrad instead of storm it early on, as well as a German player who decided to divert AGC south while it outnumbered the defenders between it and Moscow, only turning back toward Moscow when the calendar was too far along to complete the task. In short, historical outcomes rely on historical behavior by BOTH sides. Pardon me, but I never thought that was the point of these types of games. The point is always to try and do it better.


No, it is not the point to repeat history, but in principle it should be possible to see something like this, whatever the probability. You are of course right that also the Germans have to play along the same lines, or have to be forced to play along the same lines (i.e. if the Soviet be forced to defend forward by unrealistically slowing HI evac, you could also make a point for a rule forcing the German player to go for Leningrad each time -- but exactly this is not what anybody wants; let it all be possible within reason, but no "soft-factors" forcing anything).

However, you also seem to believe that the Germans did send part of the two Panzergroups of AGC south to Kiev without considering advancing further towards Moscow. But as far as I can judge, this was not the case. They hand their hands full defending from very heavy counterattacks in the Yelnja bend, and southwards, which even required them to give up the Yelnja bridgehead after three weeks if I recall correctly. After the jump over the landbridge late July, AGC was short on supply (particularly artillery ammo) and fuel, not to mention replacements. AGC was in no state to advance further until mid September; I believe also Glantz wrote so in one of his analysis.
Meanwhile PzGrp. 3 had already send about a corps to AGN to help defeat or stop the dangerous Soviet counteroffensive south of lake Ilmen (Staraya Russia), while AGC had run into serious trouble and had suffered substantial losses at the hands of those forces, which commonly in this game get eliminated in the Lvov pocket. The advance of AGS into the Russian grain belt and towards the coal and ore mines was not getting ahead as fast as planned and was almost stalled in early August.
The OKW staff writes in his daily reports of a briefing, in which this was discussed with Hitler, and the chances weighed whether the possibility to relieve AGS, or even destroy a part of the opposing forces could be justified by a delay in the AGC sector. There obviously was a meeting scheduled with Guderian, Hoth and Hitler as well, who concluded that AGC couldn't make use of the armor anyway until the logistics and the infantry had caught up fully.
So it would seem it was not a totally arbitrary decision, but one that made best use of time and means.

Also for Leningrad I am not so sure where the true argument really lies. The books propagate the story that Hitler decided on a siege instead of taking it. But at the time, when this decision was made, AGN was fighting off the counterattacks in its right flank, with help of Pzgr. 3 elements, was stemming a counteroffensive beyond the Volkov, and yet had already attempted to assault both the southern defenses of Petershof, and Leningrad. However, there was barely any progress towards both of these objectives between mid/late September and early October, while the Soviet counteroffensives were blunted. But that time weather had worsened substantially and the focus had shifted to Typhoon. To me it seems the Germans tried, and tried hard to grab Leningrad quickly, but refrained from too costly assaults after being stalled for weeks. Also this doesn't strike me as an arbitrary decision, but a quite causal one.

Clearly, in all cases the Germans were pushing hard, and they did suffer substantially (though numerically much less than the Russians). But I cannot see any of those dire situations for the Germans happen in this game, the German player hardly gets into such reversing troubles except if he gets his spearheads isolated by accident. And even then usually reserves are still sufficient to resolve the situation. The Russian counters seem weak, barely enough to hold tight if not surrounded. Apparently not strong enough to counterattack forcefully, suffer 4-6M casualties, and yet still hold back the Germans, drive wedges into their front, and mount a blizzard offensive. This wouldn't replicate any of the reasons why Germans stopped assaulting Leningrad, had to take an extended pause on the landbridge before advancing towards Moscow, while at the same time grinding only forward slowly and costly near Kiev. I think this would look very different in most AARs if a halfway competent Soviet player had the means to cause only a single one of such delays/troubles.

< Message edited by janh -- 7/3/2012 4:24:35 PM >

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 36
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 4:32:16 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5884
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

It's essential to make a fight out of Leningrad in every game, even if it falls, keeping the Axis busy there until mud helps Moscow. But if the Axis really wants it, they are probably going to get it. It really depends how much they reinforce AGN. If AGN is just stock, then it is possible to hold on to Leningrad if the Soviet pours a lot of stuff there.

If the Axis doesn't reinforce AGN, this is worst of all worlds for him. Leningrad may not fall and PG4 is stuck up there for the whole summer without accomplishing its objective, and in turn never gets a chance to hit Moscow. That is why, imo, the Axis ought to massively reinforce AGN every time. Moscow can wait until August. Logistics alone will prevent a big push in the center until then. AGC has to push the rails past Smolensk. You can still get two full clear months in the center after knocking out Leningrad.

Micheal is doing pretty much what I do: heavy on the north (even trying to stop the Finns cold, which is something everybody ought to do), then the center, and delaying in the south. But I think he's running away too fast in the south and could have problems with factory evacuations down the line. I don't see a reason to let the Axis cross the Dnepr before turn 6.

He doesn't have diggers yet on the Neva, that's a possible error.


I disagree with one point. AGC is only 1 turn behind AGN as far as logistics goes early on. Waiting in the center is a really bad idea. Its much easyer to make the push in center sooner then later. AGC requires atleast 3 big pushes.




_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 37
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 4:57:57 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6369
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Well, I'm not saying that AGC should twiddle its thumbs. With one panzer group it can push forward some and develop its positions for later on. But actually taking a shot at Moscow can wait a bit, and you can easily peel off a panzer group for operations elsewhere until the situation ripens.

Once Leningrad is gone, then you have 3 entire panzer groups available for operations in the center, and the logistical base to support it for the last couple of clear weather months.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 38
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 5:06:05 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
From my play experience, the real danger of this kind of broad pull-back in the south and center(ish) is that it gives the Soviet time to set up giant reserve belts that really force problems on the German.

I haven't exactly beaten that yet.

But I have learned that when you're faced with the broad pullback across a wide north-south line, one of the optimization tools Germany must take is to focus on pursuing in narrow bands rather than advancing in breadth across the whole front. Broad advances mean more fatigue across the army. Narrow advances mean fewer MP expenditures for un-converted hexes. You use a few units to flip territory, the infantry moves at 1 MP a hex, and you can rest panzers (rotating them) for when you finally catch up to the line.

This tactic that I see being used herein creates the best Soviet defense around the latter summer (at least that I've played against). I think it's quite problematic, the NATO 1986 Doctrine is a super-tightly controlled scoot eastward.


(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 39
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 5:06:19 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5884
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online
Janh as far as HI and arm pts go, its basicly totally meaningless to the German player.

With the HQ nerf its basicly impossible to get 35+ arm pts as german.

The german player has to destory a min of 70 which is impossible now. I only destoried 74 vs TDV and he did not rail out any.

Hvy was window dressing, now arm pts are also window dressing. Even the tank factorys, russian armor is about usless so even pulling them is almost pointless. The main ones are the trucks and planes.

The only thing that matters is pocketing russian units and manpower pts for the German player.

The russian player has to make sure his army doesn't grow to fast heheh. There is a current AAR which proves that pt.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 7/3/2012 5:13:47 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 40
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 5:11:07 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5884
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

From my play experience, the real danger of this kind of broad pull-back in the south and center(ish) is that it gives the Soviet time to set up giant reserve belts that really force problems on the German.

I haven't exactly beaten that yet.

But I have learned that when you're faced with the broad pullback across a wide north-south line, one of the optimization tools Germany must take is to focus on pursuing in narrow bands rather than advancing in breadth across the whole front. Broad advances mean more fatigue across the army. Narrow advances mean fewer MP expenditures for un-converted hexes. You use a few units to flip territory, the infantry moves at 1 MP a hex, and you can rest panzers (rotating them) for when you finally catch up to the line.

This tactic that I see being used herein creates the best Soviet defense around the latter summer (at least that I've played against). I think it's quite problematic, the NATO 1986 Doctrine is a super-tightly controlled scoot eastward.




Every once on a while there is a mini-patch that totally changes the game wildly swinging in favor of one side or the other.

What once was is no more.

The main reason I am playing russian side and probably MT reason is we are looking for a weakness to exploit if there is any all things being equal

Pelton

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 41
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 5:55:42 PM   
gingerbread


Posts: 1760
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline
1 million troops will consume roughly 5000 points of supply per turn (more if they fight) and it takes 10 HI to produce 5000 points.

It's fully possible to ship out say 5 groups of 4 HI to enable a larger army than what is the usual limit. The trick is to preserve enough of the starting army and recruiting locations to get to that size.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 42
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 6:21:03 PM   
M60A3TTS

 

Posts: 1025
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

From my play experience, the real danger of this kind of broad pull-back in the south and center(ish) is that it gives the Soviet time to set up giant reserve belts that really force problems on the German.

I haven't exactly beaten that yet.

But I have learned that when you're faced with the broad pullback across a wide north-south line, one of the optimization tools Germany must take is to focus on pursuing in narrow bands rather than advancing in breadth across the whole front. Broad advances mean more fatigue across the army. Narrow advances mean fewer MP expenditures for un-converted hexes. You use a few units to flip territory, the infantry moves at 1 MP a hex, and you can rest panzers (rotating them) for when you finally catch up to the line.

This tactic that I see being used herein creates the best Soviet defense around the latter summer (at least that I've played against). I think it's quite problematic, the NATO 1986 Doctrine is a super-tightly controlled scoot eastward.




I'm sorry, Helio, the NATO Doctine that you like to bring up is largely irrelevant. So the Red Army can shift a lot of divisions around between armies in 1941. The result hardly holds any significance. Even Zhukov will get his butt kicked when commanding a neatly organized and "optimal" field army if it is directly in the path of a panzer push. In 1942 when it comes to admin points the Soviet player constantly lives hand to mouth once his divisions need to be replaced and corps created.

Consider the Soviet position at the end of a relatively successful German '42 Summer offensive.

Replace 90 rifle divisions = 900AP = 15 weeks of APs
Build 24 tank corps = 480AP = 9 weeks of APs
Build 6 rifle corps = 120AP = 2 weeks of APs
Any new army HQ = 25hp = .4 week of AP
Any mech corps = 35 hp (3 motor/mech brigades plus corps build cost)
30 artillery divisions = 300AP = 5 weeks of AP

That's over 7 months worth even without the new army HQs and you better hope as Soviet that you don't lose many of those precious 20hp corps units. And to have all this in place in early 1943 is a tall order. You are in such a scenario having to start this build process in May-June 1942.

Want to add an SU to a corps? That's 2AP each, one to buy it at the army or STAVKA and another to assign it to the corps.
Then there's the General-Major Stepan Kalinin lovefest. This guy apparently has naughty pictures of an influential member of the Politburo because the AI constantly picks him to command a newly raised army or replacing a leader gone KIA or replaced. His stats are 3/4/4/5 - 2/5/5/1. The guy really needs to be put in a gulag but the AI loves him. So you have to plan on spending APs usually more than once to get rid of him. And of course you will spend APs to change any new leadrers out that you want.

Aircraft upgrades are also 1AP each, but the AI only replaces those units at under half strength. That generally means waiting until the pool for a particular model runs dry. Meanwhile, where do the most modern planes go? To the new air units the AI raises. With experience in the upper 30's they're more a menace to their own people and these FBs seldom shoot down planes. I'm literally disbanding all newly formed fighter and fighter bomber units to keep modern planes in the pool that I can then spend APs on to redistribute these to the best units.

So yes, maybe the Soviets get too many APs in the narrow focus of what happens in 1941, but when you see the related AP expenses into 1942 and beyond, the same AP numbers appear almost necessary.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 43
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 7:22:41 PM   
HITMAN202


Posts: 553
Joined: 11/10/2011
Status: offline
Going back to the game, I think Flavius is spot on about the best Axis strategy for AGN/AGC during the first 6 turns .... take Leningrad (really isolate the city) as quickly as possible with the help of 4 PZ divisions from north AGC and then send the whole kit and kabooble to hit Moscow.

Looking at the turn 2 map, glvaca apparently failed on the first turn to link AGN/AGC at the Zeimena River and essentially prevented any coordination between the two army groups. Look at Michael T.'s opening move (or more recently Saper222's against Kamil) and how the two groups were linked (also see how much territory was converted north of Minsk and how a really strong Inf Div was isolated at x63,y47.)

Also it seems that glvaca did not convert much territory north of the Daugava on turn 2 and Michael T. was able to establish a neat screen of 5 Sec units to delay the German capture of Pskov.





_____________________________

WITE is a good addiction with no cure.

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 44
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 7:27:21 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5884
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online
The Russian player should not have any corps built until January 43.

Divisions are more then enough to slow down tanks in 42.

I have pocketed 155 units of which 15 were corp during 42 and the Russian player had many many corps by the end of January 43. I also had killed 4 million by December 41.

I have seen 8 million man armys by June 42 that I cut though like butter and 7.3 million men armys that I never was able to punch through.

I beleive that infantry corp in 42 water down the red army. Your better off with less full strength units and AP/manpower in the bank until January 43.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 7/3/2012 7:32:38 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 45
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 7:35:20 PM   
M60A3TTS

 

Posts: 1025
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
If you want to build another 12 rifle divisions in lieu of the 6 rifle corps in 1942, then fine. It doesn't change the overall situation in any meaningful way given the length of the front and # of units.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 46
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 7:52:54 PM   
M60A3TTS

 

Posts: 1025
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The Russian player should not have any corps built until January 43.

Divisions are more then enough to slow down tanks in 42.

I have pocketed 155 units of which 15 were corp during 42 and the Russian player had many many corps by the end of January 43. I also had killed 4 million by December 41.

I have seen 8 million man armys by June 42 that I cut though like butter and 7.3 million men armys that I never was able to punch through.

I beleive that infantry corp in 42 water down the red army. Your better off with less full strength units and AP/manpower in the bank until January 43.


I assume the 7.3 million man army you are referring to was Kamil's. If you refer back to your AAR and look at the screenshot of the front, he clearly has HQs sitting on forts to prevent decay. That no longer works as you know from first-hand experience.

And you were through the Level 3 forts before you called a halt. Under todays rules, you likely get through.

And you'll also note he did have rifle corps built.



< Message edited by M60A3TTS -- 7/3/2012 7:53:28 PM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 47
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 8:36:20 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5884
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online
I guess the proof is in the game play and we have to see how MT and my games play out as Russians and mine as Germans under the latest nerf to hit German army.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 7/3/2012 8:37:07 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 48
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 8:38:53 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5884
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The Russian player should not have any corps built until January 43.

Divisions are more then enough to slow down tanks in 42.

I have pocketed 155 units of which 15 were corp during 42 and the Russian player had many many corps by the end of January 43. I also had killed 4 million by December 41.

I have seen 8 million man armys by June 42 that I cut though like butter and 7.3 million men armys that I never was able to punch through.

I beleive that infantry corp in 42 water down the red army. Your better off with less full strength units and AP/manpower in the bank until January 43.


I assume the 7.3 million man army you are referring to was Kamil's. If you refer back to your AAR and look at the screenshot of the front, he clearly has HQs sitting on forts to prevent decay. That no longer works as you know from first-hand experience.

And you were through the Level 3 forts before you called a halt. Under todays rules, you likely get through.

And you'll also note he did have rifle corps built.




Point taken:

1 loss vs Hoooper under the old 1v1=2v1
1 loss vs Kamil under old fort rules and some of 1v1=2v1

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 49
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 9:24:47 PM   
mvdh1

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 9/2/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

It's essential to make a fight out of Leningrad in every game, even if it falls, keeping the Axis busy there until mud helps Moscow. But if the Axis really wants it, they are probably going to get it. It really depends how much they reinforce AGN. If AGN is just stock, then it is possible to hold on to Leningrad if the Soviet pours a lot of stuff there.

If the Axis doesn't reinforce AGN, this is worst of all worlds for him. Leningrad may not fall and PG4 is stuck up there for the whole summer without accomplishing its objective, and in turn never gets a chance to hit Moscow. That is why, imo, the Axis ought to massively reinforce AGN every time. Moscow can wait until August. Logistics alone will prevent a big push in the center until then. AGC has to push the rails past Smolensk. You can still get two full clear months in the center after knocking out Leningrad.

Micheal is doing pretty much what I do: heavy on the north (even trying to stop the Finns cold, which is something everybody ought to do), then the center, and delaying in the south. But I think he's running away too fast in the south and could have problems with factory evacuations down the line. I don't see a reason to let the Axis cross the Dnepr before turn 6.

He doesn't have diggers yet on the Neva, that's a possible error.


Flaviusx is quite correct here. I have found against a good Russian defense such as the one the Michael T has set up the German player must reinforce the north to have any chance of taking Leningrad. So for me I now send every German unit that arrives as a reinforcement up North otherwise no taking Leningrad and no linking up with the Finns and that hurts your first blizzard defenses.

Mark

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 50
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 9:34:31 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 652
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The Russian player should not have any corps built until January 43.


Historically, the Russians should have 25 Rifle Corps by Jan 1st, 1943.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 51
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 9:43:33 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

From my play experience, the real danger of this kind of broad pull-back in the south and center(ish) is that it gives the Soviet time to set up giant reserve belts that really force problems on the German.

I haven't exactly beaten that yet.

But I have learned that when you're faced with the broad pullback across a wide north-south line, one of the optimization tools Germany must take is to focus on pursuing in narrow bands rather than advancing in breadth across the whole front. Broad advances mean more fatigue across the army. Narrow advances mean fewer MP expenditures for un-converted hexes. You use a few units to flip territory, the infantry moves at 1 MP a hex, and you can rest panzers (rotating them) for when you finally catch up to the line.

This tactic that I see being used herein creates the best Soviet defense around the latter summer (at least that I've played against). I think it's quite problematic, the NATO 1986 Doctrine is a super-tightly controlled scoot eastward.




I'm sorry, Helio, the NATO Doctine that you like to bring up is largely irrelevant. So the Red Army can shift a lot of divisions around between armies in 1941. The result hardly holds any significance. Even Zhukov will get his butt kicked when commanding a neatly organized and "optimal" field army if it is directly in the path of a panzer push. In 1942 when it comes to admin points the Soviet player constantly lives hand to mouth once his divisions need to be replaced and corps created.

Consider the Soviet position at the end of a relatively successful German '42 Summer offensive.

Replace 90 rifle divisions = 900AP = 15 weeks of APs
Build 24 tank corps = 480AP = 9 weeks of APs
Build 6 rifle corps = 120AP = 2 weeks of APs
Any new army HQ = 25hp = .4 week of AP
Any mech corps = 35 hp (3 motor/mech brigades plus corps build cost)
30 artillery divisions = 300AP = 5 weeks of AP

That's over 7 months worth even without the new army HQs and you better hope as Soviet that you don't lose many of those precious 20hp corps units. And to have all this in place in early 1943 is a tall order. You are in such a scenario having to start this build process in May-June 1942.

Want to add an SU to a corps? That's 2AP each, one to buy it at the army or STAVKA and another to assign it to the corps.
Then there's the General-Major Stepan Kalinin lovefest. This guy apparently has naughty pictures of an influential member of the Politburo because the AI constantly picks him to command a newly raised army or replacing a leader gone KIA or replaced. His stats are 3/4/4/5 - 2/5/5/1. The guy really needs to be put in a gulag but the AI loves him. So you have to plan on spending APs usually more than once to get rid of him. And of course you will spend APs to change any new leadrers out that you want.

Aircraft upgrades are also 1AP each, but the AI only replaces those units at under half strength. That generally means waiting until the pool for a particular model runs dry. Meanwhile, where do the most modern planes go? To the new air units the AI raises. With experience in the upper 30's they're more a menace to their own people and these FBs seldom shoot down planes. I'm literally disbanding all newly formed fighter and fighter bomber units to keep modern planes in the pool that I can then spend APs on to redistribute these to the best units.

So yes, maybe the Soviets get too many APs in the narrow focus of what happens in 1941, but when you see the related AP expenses into 1942 and beyond, the same AP numbers appear almost necessary.


I believe you are mixing my metaphors in my game design complaints.
"Nato 1986 Defense" refers to the seemless use of maximal ZOC density to deny the Germans as much maneuver potential as possible.

My AP arguments are collectively known as "the Superiority of Soviet C&C Relative to both Germany in game and Russia in history."(trademark)

I don't really mind the former (it's the shell ZOC problem I object to) because both players will rely on it. I don't care too much about the latter; I just want Germany to have the same cost values or better than the Soviet (so Germany can do more administratively to optimize its game). Just as with the victory conditions in game, the Soviet admin point scale was thrown in and not really ever balanced around anything other than unit creation (everything else was discounted to almost nil for the Soviets, creating a heavy competitive advantage).

But I am trying hard not to divert an AAR discussion to anything other than the game at hand, I wanted to clarify.

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 52
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/3/2012 10:00:06 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2370
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
Just incase there is any doubt, I intend to win the game.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 53
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/4/2012 2:08:49 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2370
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
quote:

You might temp the Axis to do the extended right hook to Onega :)


Things like the Onega move are just not feasible anymore. At least not at this point in the game. To do an Onega move you need gassed up Mech units and associated HQ's with lots of fuel as well. The HQBU nerf makes it very difficult to maintain any drive beyond 20mp from a railhead. You might make a deep penetration but you will then be stuck out in no mans land without any gas, amongst a swarm of angry little bees. You might just pull it off in the south with the entire Luftwaffe acting as fuel bearers but not in the rugged area's east of Leningrad. Not with competent Soviet play anyways.


_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 54
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/4/2012 5:54:46 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

The Russian player should not have any corps built until January 43.
Divisions are more then enough to slow down tanks in 42


I wouldn't build any regular rifle corps until they're cheaper ('43), but Gds rifle corps are a different animal. The morale (and thereby exp.) difference makes them more than speed bumps. They can actually hit back and truly anchor points in the line. Since APs have a max, you'll probably find it worthwhile spend some in this direction during '42 (certainly more worthwhile than burning hundreds and hundreds of APs on fortified regions).

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 55
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/4/2012 6:23:49 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6369
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Even guards rifle corps should be built in very limited numbers in 1942. No more than a half dozen or so. You really need divisions in 1942, they are better for defensive purposes, and the Soviet is also strapped for APs anyways.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 56
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/7/2012 9:54:04 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2370
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: online
End Soviet T6

The invaders have struck a strong blow straight at Leningrad. It will most likely be cut off in 1 or 2 more turns. But I will make him fight for it.

In the Centre he has surged toward Rzhev/Torzhok. A deflection from Moscow and Tula. This is an error in my view. As it totally removes the threat from my centre. I don't have to defend it at all. My lines can remain compressed. If he had struck south and threatened Tula my lines would have been much lengthened and thinned. I hope he continues on this northern axis as even if he went on to Onega it would mean his Mech units would be stuck up there for the rest of the summer. I suspect he will turn back towards a more direct easterly attack on Moscow. But please let him keep going North :)

In the south he has split his Mech units in to two groups. One down near the Crimea and the other is resting/HQBU at Kremenchug. It looks as though a surge is planned with the Kremenchug group on T7, most likely toward Kharkov I suspect as there is virtually nothing left in D/Z towns.

I think in AGC, where he has just one Mech group you need two. Even if one is much weaker. You need to keep pressure across a greater width of the front to facilitate penetration. One drive in AGC is easier to stem than two.

Overall I am very happy with proceedings to date. Leningrad is my only concern at this point. I had hoped the forces deployed there would have had more of an impact. He has the stock Mech forces there plus one extra Pz XX. But it still looks like it will fall by ~T10 /11 . I will try to buy more time. With the far north flank secure, even if Leningrad falls the front won't collapse due to Finnish pressure from the Svir. He will need to keep pushing or a line will form along the Volkov, unless his AGC northern thrust unhinges it all. But I would welcome that. I would gladly sacrifice many of those troops if it meant the bulk of the AGN/AGC Mech units were stuck up there for the summer.

On a brighter note my loses so far have been very light. Only just passing 1 million this turn. And still over 900K in the arm pool.

I have done some rough calcs on the number of HI I need to have going in to and beyond 1943. The ceiling on supplies produced is Resources. The SU has 196 Resource Centres (RC). They can expect to lose around 40-45. So assuming they lose 45 that leaves say 150. So that’s 150,000 resource points per turn. That’s the maximum amount of supplies that can be produced assuming the loss of around 45 RC. The HI multiplier in 1943 is 1.55. So as it takes a 1:1 ratio for supply production from RC/HI I need to produce 150,000 HI points. That’s 150,000/500/1.55 = ~190 HI. So if I save around 190 HI it will give me the maximum possible amount of supply in 1943. Right now I have 211. So not a lot of leeway left. But from what I have seen from other AAR's the Soviets end with 1000's upon 1000's of unused AFV's and A/C in 43/44. So if supplies become a problem I can always wind back production of AFV and A/C so that more supplies are used for ammo/supply.

Example
The SU might be producing 280 T34 M42's each turn in 1943. If we have stacks in pools we might decide to downgrade our production to say 140 tanks per turn. What would that save us?

Build cost of 140 T34's in supply points = 377*140/10 = 5278

How many HI centres would it take to produce 5278 supply points in 1943?
5278/500/1.55 = 6.8

Cutting back production on superfluous war material can potentially save ballpark 15 to 20 HI centres for supply production assuming you have a surplus of stocks. And as Flavious as mentioned elsewhere things like U2’s or whatever can be eliminated.

A question for anyone who may know.
What does the value in parentheses represent in the Production screen for "Supply Stores:"
Eg it might be something like "Supply Stores: 650690 (353758)"
With Resource Stores the parentheses number represents what was consumed that turn, the number I am asking about definitely does not represent Supplies consumed.

Just got Glenn’s T7. No disasters. He surged at Kharkov and consolidated his gains around Rzhev and Leningrad. Leningrad still has a land bridge to the east.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 57
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/7/2012 10:15:36 PM   
M60A3TTS

 

Posts: 1025
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
The parentheses in this case represents the value to reach 100%.

Supply stores are total amount of supply in storage.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 58
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/8/2012 12:45:33 AM   
Seminole


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

The invaders have struck a strong blow straight at Leningrad. It will most likely be cut off in 1 or 2 more turns. But I will make him fight for it.


I like to start fortifying Leningrad's 'back door' on turn 1. I find a handy div. with good construction value and stick it in there immediately. It can't make as big a difference anywhere else in the sector at that stage anyway. If you hold Leningrad on the Neva river you'll find the attrition through the winter pretty atrocious. Merging brigades into your front line divisions (brigades are easier to ship over there) is the only way to keep up your strength. If I'm not mistaken you won't be allowed to merge naval brigades, so keep that in mind.

Will you show what's happening on the Janisjarvi Line? Curious how you've decided to reinforce 7th Ind. Army (air groups, reserves, etc). You might want to put your best Army general in there too. It's upsetting to build a nice line and see your CV squandered by poor rolls.

You fell back very rapidly in the south, what factories did you decide to leave behind?

< Message edited by Seminole -- 7/8/2012 1:02:17 AM >

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 59
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/8/2012 2:21:42 PM   
notenome

 

Posts: 598
Joined: 12/28/2009
Status: offline
Yeah, level 0 fort in Pavlovo this late in the game is bad news.

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Rhine or Ruin Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.113