Matrix Games Forums

A new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936War in the West coming in December!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

T5 - North

 
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 >> T5 - North Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
T5 - North - 8/29/2014 1:34:34 AM   
Oshawott

 

Posts: 1263
Joined: 10/30/2013
Status: offline
T5 - North

1st Corps takes Novgorod. Manstein's Corps then pushes through to attack the hexes adjacent to Novgorod. Fortunately the fortifications were rather weak.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Oshawott)
Post #: 61
T5 - Center - 8/29/2014 1:38:30 AM   
Oshawott

 

Posts: 1263
Joined: 10/30/2013
Status: offline
T5 - Center

I concentrate all my forces and break through the land bridge with infantry. The three hex gap is exploited by tanks and Vitebsk is encircled with 7 divisions. I pay a hefty price though.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Oshawott)
Post #: 62
T5 - South - 8/29/2014 1:44:33 AM   
Oshawott

 

Posts: 1263
Joined: 10/30/2013
Status: offline
T5 - South

The pocket is broken and I seal it again but flimsy. I don't have enough troops to do everything well.

Two Corps are across the Dnepr and are enlarging the bridgehead. I like to see shattering rifle divisions.

I also push through the lower Dnepr and flip the hexes all the way down to the Crimean land bridge. Then I get greedy and attack a cavalry division in swamp and pay the price for it.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Oshawott -- 8/29/2014 2:48:46 AM >

(in reply to Oshawott)
Post #: 63
T5 - OOB - 8/29/2014 1:49:15 AM   
Oshawott

 

Posts: 1263
Joined: 10/30/2013
Status: offline
T5 - OOB





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Oshawott)
Post #: 64
T5 - Losses - 8/29/2014 1:49:55 AM   
Oshawott

 

Posts: 1263
Joined: 10/30/2013
Status: offline
T5 - Losses





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Oshawott)
Post #: 65
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 1:50:51 AM   
A game


Posts: 73
Joined: 5/9/2012
Status: offline
It seems you got a "free lunch" with Leningrad, imo the Soviet has to defend strongly here, there is just way to much good terrain to give it away like he has.

I guess Im probably repeating others here but I would be funneling everything at AGC now as you should have a serious opportunity to take out Moscow in 41 or at the least get some big pockets if he tries to stand and fight, either way you have crippled the Soviets.

(in reply to Oshawott)
Post #: 66
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 2:07:54 AM   
Oshawott

 

Posts: 1263
Joined: 10/30/2013
Status: offline
quote:

It seems you got a "free lunch" with Leningrad, imo the Soviet has to defend strongly here, there is just way to much good terrain to give it away like he has.


I think Griefhead's plan was to defend closer to Leningrad and focuses on the swamp and rough hexes in the vicinity of the city. Unfortunately, the speed of my advance meant that almost none of the fortifications were finished. I think it's essential to defend further south with a checkerboard and to take advantage of all the swamp hexes just in front of the Luga.

(in reply to A game)
Post #: 67
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 2:30:37 AM   
hfarrish


Posts: 743
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

Not just a checkerboard...IMO it's essential to commit significant forces to the Pskov area. There are enough swamps and rivers there to bog things down and (a) given Leningrad defenses time to develop but more importantly (b) give the Germans less time to exploit them. I am not always successful at holding Leningrad but a robust Pskov defense can push things to where Leningrad doesn't fall until turn 17 or so, which almost by definition secures Moscow.

(in reply to Oshawott)
Post #: 68
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 3:29:33 AM   
A game


Posts: 73
Joined: 5/9/2012
Status: offline
I agree hfarrish, against a good german player you can never hold Leningrad till 42, but the important thing is to force them to use up time and forces taking it, and to do that you need to exploit every defensive hex available.

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 69
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 10:07:32 AM   
Callistrid

 

Posts: 428
Joined: 8/11/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: A game

I agree hfarrish, against a good german player you can never hold Leningrad till 42, but the important thing is to force them to use up time and forces taking it, and to do that you need to exploit every defensive hex available.


I disagree. Good soviet player can defend Leningrad against a good german player.
Defending Leningrad need high CV troops from center, and south front.

(in reply to A game)
Post #: 70
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 10:55:20 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2391
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Under the current rule set a good Soviet player should have a very good chance of holding Leningrad and Moscow no matter the skill of the German player.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Callistrid)
Post #: 71
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 11:51:59 AM   
hfarrish


Posts: 743
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Callistrid


quote:

ORIGINAL: A game

I agree hfarrish, against a good german player you can never hold Leningrad till 42, but the important thing is to force them to use up time and forces taking it, and to do that you need to exploit every defensive hex available.


I disagree. Good soviet player can defend Leningrad against a good german player.
Defending Leningrad need high CV troops from center, and south front.


Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to say that a Soviet player couldn't hold Leningrad...I was just saying that it is essential to mount a robust defense around Pskov in order to make that possible. As such, I think I agree with both of you guys.

(in reply to Callistrid)
Post #: 72
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 2:02:00 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6395
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
As things presently stand, if the Soviet makes a point of it, he stands a very good chance of holding on to Leningrad. But you have to make it a number one priority and go all in from turn 1 on and make a strong stand at Pskov. There's no half measures here.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 73
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 4:44:19 PM   
charlie0311

 

Posts: 341
Joined: 12/20/2013
Status: offline
Hi guys, "as presently stands" must mean sovs get the 1/1 bonus. IMHO, not just humble but laughable, no way to hold Lgrad when 1/1 goes. Axis player will pocket and kill your Pskov defense.

Sov can make the urban hexes more stubborn via nightly resupply with airbases in hex. Osh may know better than me about this.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 74
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 5:08:14 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6395
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

Hi guys, "as presently stands" must mean sovs get the 1/1 bonus. IMHO, not just humble but laughable, no way to hold Lgrad when 1/1 goes. Axis player will pocket and kill your Pskov defense.

Sov can make the urban hexes more stubborn via nightly resupply with airbases in hex. Osh may know better than me about this.


Nah, still doable even without the 1/1 bonus.

Now, if you muck around with the fortification settings...

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to charlie0311)
Post #: 75
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 5:15:03 PM   
Oshawott

 

Posts: 1263
Joined: 10/30/2013
Status: offline
quote:

Now, if you muck around with the fortification settings...


Changing the fortification settings will have a much more dramatic impact on this game then eliminating the 1/1 bonus. It will have to be carefully tested.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 76
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 6:46:36 PM   
loki100


Posts: 916
Joined: 10/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oshawott

quote:

Now, if you muck around with the fortification settings...


Changing the fortification settings will have a much more dramatic impact on this game then eliminating the 1/1 bonus. It will have to be carefully tested.


its great that we will have so many variables with 1.08 but it is going to need some care I agree.

One thing that worries me is no 1-1 (fine) and mild winter (in isolation a huge gain to gameplay) in combination may well see very little Soviet offensive action in a reasonably balanced game. But then it seems as if the Soviets will have far more armaments at that stage so probably far more SUs in the key armies ... so who knows?

(in reply to Oshawott)
Post #: 77
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 9:24:40 PM   
A game


Posts: 73
Joined: 5/9/2012
Status: offline
Im not convinced about the L-grad defense, can anyone point me to an AAR where it was held? I have yet to see a game where this has happened...

Honestly in 41 if the germans commit enough forces they can go anywhere they want, with proper support from SU and air they can crack ANY defensive CV.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 78
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 10:02:12 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2391
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3162325

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3131984

< Message edited by Michael T -- 8/29/2014 11:04:12 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to A game)
Post #: 79
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 10:50:26 PM   
hfarrish


Posts: 743
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

Hi guys, "as presently stands" must mean sovs get the 1/1 bonus. IMHO, not just humble but laughable, no way to hold Lgrad when 1/1 goes. Axis player will pocket and kill your Pskov defense.

Sov can make the urban hexes more stubborn via nightly resupply with airbases in hex. Osh may know better than me about this.


The bonus is only on the attack right? Generally attacking is not what saves Lgrad. I think it's still doable without it, just much more difficult.

(in reply to charlie0311)
Post #: 80
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 10:51:35 PM   
hfarrish


Posts: 743
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oshawott

quote:

Now, if you muck around with the fortification settings...


Changing the fortification settings will have a much more dramatic impact on this game then eliminating the 1/1 bonus. It will have to be carefully tested.


As a tester of fort settings at 70%, I would say they need to be significantly lower than that (50%? 40%) to make a big difference.

Do the fort settings impact fort strength, build times or both?

(in reply to Oshawott)
Post #: 81
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 11:14:41 PM   
Oshawott

 

Posts: 1263
Joined: 10/30/2013
Status: offline
quote:

Do the fort settings impact fort strength, build times or both?


As far as I know the current version effects only build time and the new version will effect fort strength which will be much more important.

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 82
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/29/2014 11:53:56 PM   
charlie0311

 

Posts: 341
Joined: 12/20/2013
Status: offline
MT, checked out threads, above, that's holding Lgrad for sure. Thx for straightening me out.

Without counting, looks like about half of SW Front was railed up there. No?

(in reply to Oshawott)
Post #: 83
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/30/2014 3:27:03 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2391
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
quote:

MT, checked out threads, above, that's holding Lgrad for sure. Thx for straightening me out.

Without counting, looks like about half of SW Front was railed up there. No?



Yes, most of the quality units that start in the south head north. It's standard procedure.

To set you straight, about 12 months ago most reasonable veteran players came to realize that the game had become so biased to the Soviets it was no longer worth playing as contest. So some of us left the scene until the game balance could be restored. Now it appears this new patch (1.08) will offer players the chance (with suitable settings) to configure a game that offers both sides a fair chance of victory. So some vets are returning to the scene to try it out. I being one such player.



_____________________________

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

(in reply to charlie0311)
Post #: 84
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/30/2014 7:14:27 AM   
loki100


Posts: 916
Joined: 10/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

quote:

MT, checked out threads, above, that's holding Lgrad for sure. Thx for straightening me out.

Without counting, looks like about half of SW Front was railed up there. No?



Yes, most of the quality units that start in the south head north. It's standard procedure.

To set you straight, about 12 months ago most reasonable veteran players came to realize that the game had become so biased to the Soviets it was no longer worth playing as contest. So some of us left the scene until the game balance could be restored. Now it appears this new patch (1.08) will offer players the chance (with suitable settings) to configure a game that offers both sides a fair chance of victory. So some vets are returning to the scene to try it out. I being one such player.




this only partly picks at the issue. The problem in the south is that two lumps of cheese are coinciding.

First, the (physically impossible) Lvov pocket (in all its variants) means that the only real defensive tool a Soviet player is left with is to stretch the supply lines. If this is all you need to do, then pulling out most of the forces for a (politically impossible) allocation of SW Front to the defense of Leningrad is indeed a valid move.

Solution? No Lvov, no Soviet withdrawals from the Ukraine till SW Front is in contact with Bryansk (ie realistically after the loss of Gomel and Chernigov). Result, a damn good tussle in the Ukraine and trying to defend Leningrad on a shoe string.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 85
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/30/2014 11:17:16 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6032
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

Hi guys, "as presently stands" must mean sovs get the 1/1 bonus. IMHO, not just humble but laughable, no way to hold Lgrad when 1/1 goes. Axis player will pocket and kill your Pskov defense.

Sov can make the urban hexes more stubborn via nightly resupply with airbases in hex. Osh may know better than me about this.


Nah, still doable even without the 1/1 bonus.

Now, if you muck around with the fortification settings...


I don't believe one will need to muck around with FZ settings as the time to build a fort is going to take longer for both sides and even longer for SHC in 1.08.

So holding Leningrad is not going to be a given now for SHC. More then likely vs the best of the best GHC players SHC players are looking at holding as long as possible which in turn means Moscow holds.

The key still being as always how long can SHC hold Leningrad.

The game will have a much much better historical feel.

Not WW I one the Eastern Front, but finally WW II on the Eastern Front.


< Message edited by Pelton -- 8/30/2014 12:17:49 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 Flaviusx)
Post #: 86
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/30/2014 11:19:40 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6032
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

quote:

MT, checked out threads, above, that's holding Lgrad for sure. Thx for straightening me out.

Without counting, looks like about half of SW Front was railed up there. No?



Yes, most of the quality units that start in the south head north. It's standard procedure.

To set you straight, about 12 months ago most reasonable veteran players came to realize that the game had become so biased to the Soviets it was no longer worth playing as contest. So some of us left the scene until the game balance could be restored. Now it appears this new patch (1.08) will offer players the chance (with suitable settings) to configure a game that offers both sides a fair chance of victory. So some vets are returning to the scene to try it out. I being one such player.




You will be rethinking that strategy for a number of reasons.


_____________________________

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 Michael T)
Post #: 87
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/30/2014 8:45:25 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 968
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Yes the whole game will change with this next patch. My wild guess is that it might even favour the axis too much in 41. For one thing,Soviet players that are used to optimising their c&c in 41 will have to think again

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 88
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/30/2014 8:50:19 PM   
A game


Posts: 73
Joined: 5/9/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3162325

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3131984


Thanks, but for the sake of argument I have to disagree still.

That first game is an aberration as you knew Pelton would do his "right hook" thing, which he had been doing in every game leading up to your match together, it may have gone differently if he had just done the standard, straight for L-grad move. I honestly think the right hook manevour is just bad, and exceptionally bad if your opponent knows your doing it.

And in that second game on turn ten the axis are at the gates of Leningrad, they only had to clear half a dozen hexes to isolate Osinovets for the standard move to take L-grad, obviously they sent the forces elsewhere, this just proves my point, if you commit to L-grad as the Axis you will take it. Flaviusx even discusses in that AAR how its impossible to hold Leningrad....

Anyway Im probably just flogging a dead horse here so I will shut up now!

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 89
RE: T4 - Losses - 8/30/2014 8:57:26 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6395
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
I have changed my mind about the impossibility of holding Leningrad. In recent games I've been doing it myself. Michael T is basically correct here. It is by no means a sure thing and you have to work for it, but it can be done.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to A game)
Post #: 90
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 >> T5 - North 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

0.102