Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 8MP T49

 
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: 8MP T49 Page: <<   < prev  25 26 [27] 28 29   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 8MP T49 - 12/11/2018 4:58:30 PM   
Dreamslayer

 

Posts: 206
Joined: 10/31/2015
From: St.Petersburg
Status: offline
There is need to keep in mind that the air part of the game is let's say "specific".
One of the examples of that is lack of actual targets for so many bomber/multi-role air-groups. There are no need to spent a sorties for attack RR-hubs,RR,various depots,naval targets etc. Even for reach good results in ground battles German side no need to use any ground support. Because of it players has too many air-groups for abnormally number of supply-transport missions or for strategic bombing that was ineffective(for various reasons) on Eastern Front.

_____________________________

"The problem of the forces' ratio can't be explained only by figures."
(c)Hitler, 6 Dec 1941, at military council

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 781
RE: 8MP T49 - 12/11/2018 7:12:26 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3636
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dreamslayer

There is need to keep in mind that the air part of the game is let's say "specific".
One of the examples of that is lack of actual targets for so many bomber/multi-role air-groups. There are no need to spent a sorties for attack RR-hubs,RR,various depots,naval targets etc. Even for reach good results in ground battles German side no need to use any ground support. Because of it players has too many air-groups for abnormally number of supply-transport missions or for strategic bombing that was ineffective(for various reasons) on Eastern Front.


It really depends on the situation and opponents. I can say that a strategy of bombing railyards might have been very fruitful in this game if things progressed. As this AAR develops you will see I moved my armor by rail two more times to hit where the Soviets were not … Over time reducing just a couple of units from reacting by rail would have made a real difference.

I use ground support and a knowledge of firepower to maximize my attacks. Particularly the Stuka's are very effective and I have had CV ratios less than 1:2 and end up with 3:1 when the Stuka's and artillery were through .. The (2) unit bombing attacks that produce fatigue and CV reduction followed on with ground support can be the deal breaker for an attack.



_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Dreamslayer)
Post #: 782
RE: 8MP T49 - 12/15/2018 3:15:34 PM   
Armatrading

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 4/18/2017
Status: offline
I have been told WitE2 has more varied uses for air power. Ground interdiction is a bit too random here to use as part of a strategy but not in WitE2. I know you can bomb railyards to reduce rail capacity - but why not railroads as was done historically? If partisans can cut rail lines why not aeroplanes?

< Message edited by Armatrading -- 12/15/2018 3:16:12 PM >

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 783
RE: 8MP T49 - 12/16/2018 3:35:41 PM   
Beria

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 4/6/2017
Status: offline
If that would mean airstrikes on rail have the same impact as partisan strikes on rail they would be way too over the top. If you could have air strikes on rail they should not be allowed to paralyse a whole army group as a result.

(in reply to Armatrading)
Post #: 784
RE: 8MP T49 - 12/16/2018 4:18:37 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3636
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beria

If that would mean airstrikes on rail have the same impact as partisan strikes on rail they would be way too over the top. If you could have air strikes on rail they should not be allowed to paralyse a whole army group as a result.


To me abstractly bombing a railyard is the same as bombing a rail. That is reducing strategically the rail capacity. But the point here is taking this to the operational level and the ability to smack and affect a single piece of rail. I agree that the game would get pretty gamey at that point.

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Beria)
Post #: 785
RE: 8MP T49 - 12/18/2018 1:25:24 PM   
Armatrading

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 4/18/2017
Status: offline
The problem with only treating rail as strategic or just as a way to reduce rail capacity is that it takes away the tactical aspect which is the whole fun of the game. The Allies deliberately bombed Seine and Loire river crossings to isolate Normandy before the D-Day invasion. I would find it interesting to use air strikes on rail to partially prevent movement to an area where I planned an offensive. Saying where on the map air strikes on rail would impact is a lot more interesting than it just reduces rail capacity everywhere.

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 786
RE: 8MP T49 - 12/18/2018 10:23:45 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3636
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Armatrading

The problem with only treating rail as strategic or just as a way to reduce rail capacity is that it takes away the tactical aspect which is the whole fun of the game. The Allies deliberately bombed Seine and Loire river crossings to isolate Normandy before the D-Day invasion. I would find it interesting to use air strikes on rail to partially prevent movement to an area where I planned an offensive. Saying where on the map air strikes on rail would impact is a lot more interesting than it just reduces rail capacity everywhere.


There are some examples on the Eastern Front where aircraft interdicted on the offense. The Battle of Smolensk toward the end the Germans trapped Soviet units using Stukas. Abstractly it plays out with higher losses on retreat but you have a point that more control of interdiction would make things more interesting.

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Armatrading)
Post #: 787
RE: 8MP T49 - 12/20/2018 10:38:20 AM   
Beria

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 4/6/2017
Status: offline
The library of resources recommended this as an AAR for the air war and I can see why. Wow! The only problem is it is mixed up with lots of other AAR things too. There is a normal AAR, all this stuff about a team game and then the stuff mainly by Telemecus in the air war. All are good. But if you are only looking to one thing it could be good to have an index. For example you can just follow all the posts with the title air at the top to get the air stuff. But there are lots of posts about the air war that do not have that as headline.

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 788
RE: 8MP T49 - 12/20/2018 12:48:31 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3636
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beria

The library of resources recommended this as an AAR for the air war and I can see why. Wow! The only problem is it is mixed up with lots of other AAR things too. There is a normal AAR, all this stuff about a team game and then the stuff mainly by Telemecus in the air war. All are good. But if you are only looking to one thing it could be good to have an index. For example you can just follow all the posts with the title air at the top to get the air stuff. But there are lots of posts about the air war that do not have that as headline.


In all the chaff posted in this AAR .. there are bits of valuable information. Unfortunately relationships deteriorated and much insight will be lost. I will complete the AAR on the behest of Telemecus.

As a side note … Empathic Skills and CyberbullyingIt seems that newsgroups, forums, social media all have a common thread in that the participants are isolated from empathetic clues. When we interact in person socially we instinctively react to these clues (with the exception of certain personality disorders) We have now 2 generations that have developed in a different social context. So the point being that untoward behaviors will end up leaving this forum with a great loss and to me what is worse, in all its arrogance will never know what knowledge there was to gain

With that said I will do my best to impart the air war lessons that closed this game.

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Beria)
Post #: 789
RE: 8MP T49 - 12/20/2018 12:50:30 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3636
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: online
Turn 49 27-May-1942 Air



During their turn Soviet ground bombing has seen moderate success as our fighters have been slower to react this turn. Soviet recon north of the marshes continued to show heavy losses. Having used their SB-2 and Pe-2 recons, and then R-5s and R-10s, now it is the U2 recons. They are not escorted and typically most missions lose all of their aircraft. It seems the Soviet team have accepted the losses and are now just throwing as many U2 recons in as they can to get any information they can. And perhaps because of the U-2 recon plane range their airbase is still within even our dive bombers by our turn. The Soviet biplane fighters posted to the U2 recon base are still not flying, so our dive bombers hit them unescorted unintercepted in daylight. By the end all Soviet air groups have only one working aircraft each left. The Soviet air force has been losing many more reconnaisance aircraft than they produce for many turns now and this cannot be sustainable.



By our turn we see the same four Soviet airbase clusters as last turn - but the three we attacked last turn have moved back. Nevertheless their interception range (represented by the red hexagons) has increased to five hexes. This covers all of their air force and Gorky - but not much else. Even at Gorky we find only a very small number of biplanes intercepting.

So with mud in the north Soviet weather zone we decide to spend the turn continuing to revamp the bomber force. Many airgroups are rotated through reserve this turn, with further manual and auto swaps prepared as we shift more of the bomber force to 1942 models. However there is enough to top up a few industrial targets - and at Gorky we find their interception close to non-existent with just handful of biplanes coming out to fight.

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 790
RE: 8MP T49 - 12/20/2018 12:51:18 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3636
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: online
Turn 49 27-May-1942 Economic

T-70 Factory in Gorky Evacuated

Having given up defending Gorky, the exodus of its industry has begun. The T-70 M1942 factory producing 17 tanks a week and still expaning was evacuated to Serov last turn. This is the second tank factory in Gorky to be evacuated and joins the previous evacuations of LaGG-3 factories from Gorky and nearby Dzerzhinsk. Another T-70 factory and a T-60 facotry remain in Gorky. These factories faced no prospects whatsoever of being overun by ground forces in the near future - its evacuation is solely down to our air bombardment.

These factory evacuated last turn expands to an eventual capacity of 30 each turn until they stop production in turn 133. If left unhindered it would produce 2,853 T-70 M1942 light tanks. We are unlikely to be able to cause further damage to the factory in its new location. The bombing damage together with its evacuation means we expect the factory which is now in Serov to produce 2,359. This is a net loss of 494 T-70 M1942.

The evacuation of this factory actually increased its damage levels. If there had been no more bombing and no evacuation we expect the factory would have produced 2,417 or a total net loss of 437 T-70 M1942. This is 57 less than will be the case. Implicitly the Soviets have told us they think our continued bombing would have stopped 58 or more extra T-70 M1942 from ever being produced. The losses they have already had should tell them it would almost certainly have been much more. And now with Gorky in Axis escort ighter range there is nothing to stop it.

The game was upgraded from v1.11.01 to v1.11.03 mid way through our bombardment of this Gorky tank factory. Under v.11.01 any damage caused the factory expansion to stop and it was held to a production run of only 13 for many turns. From v1.11.02 there remained a reduced chance that the factory would still expand even when damaged. Nevertheless the factory only expanded to a weekly production of 17 many turns after the upgrade. With damage levels approaching 50% it was becoming increasingly unlikely it would expand again soon. Clearly under old versions the losses would have been much greater, but even under the current version the losses are substantial.

......................

Also under recent versions of the game we have noticed our bombing of the T-70 factory also causes collateral to the T-60 factory we did not even target. As the T60 factory already has some damage to build on that now becomes our main target. It is has already reached its expanded limit of producing 50 every turn, and it ceases production in September. So the Soviets may not want to evacuate this factory at all. If so then we know keeping this at a high damage level will guarantee it ceases production until it ends its production life. Bar a small token biplanes interception of our bombing of Gorky they have all but surrendered the city. The 5th air battle of Gorky is over, and the skies above the city are ours again.

With the air force reorganising this turn there is only enough for a few top up raids on other heavy industry, vehicle factories and the armoured car factory at Kulebaki. Virtually all our previous targets along the Volga and Oka are now at or close to the 50% damage shut down level. Only the Kuybyshev vehicle factory and the Kulebaki armoured car factory see damage levels still being built up


The Rumanians continue with their bombing of the Caucasus, although the tac bombers have now left for the main front. The Finns continue an air campaign.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Crackaces -- 3/20/2019 6:05:12 PM >


_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 791
RE: 8MP T49 - 12/20/2018 12:54:33 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3636
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: online
The AGC commander posted out of sequence but the air war picture above shows the positions. The south had good weather..

Turn 49 27-May-1942 South

Soviet forces continue their attacks on the Rumanian forces west of Boguchar - incurring large losses each time. Tactical air forces had been specially set up in anticipation of these attacks the previous turn.

The good weather continues and Soviet forces are surrounded on the rail route to Stalingrad. The 11th army is now starting to arrive in full strength from their previous battles in Crimea.



_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 792
RE: 8MP T50 - 12/20/2018 12:57:44 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3636
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: online
World at War Episode X: Operation Treppenwitz 1942:

In my best Laurence Olivier voice; “Operation Treppenwitz proved to be difficult to initially get started. After a Blizzard Offense costing many German lives and German armor [movies with Germans advancing in the snow and 20mm quad guns shooting Soviet cavalry in the open] , the Army Group Center Commander enjoyed a dominate position with the Oka river bordering the North, the Para river to the East, and the Voronezh to the South. The 4th, 2nd, and 3rd Panzer Armies positioned to breech Soviet defenses and a plan to finally end the War in The East. Then the Rasputitsa extended well into the end of June with prospects of mud extending into July [pictures of German vehicles stuck in the mud]. Then the Soviet artillery proved more than a match for the sparse German guns. [movie with endless Soviets guns firing]. The success of Operation Treppenwitz would depend on Army Group South and crossing the Donets.” [Opening of World at War] (World At War Introduction)


< Message edited by Crackaces -- 12/20/2018 5:06:18 PM >


_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 793
RE: 8MP T50 - 12/20/2018 1:30:25 PM   
Beria

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 4/6/2017
Status: offline
Many thanks for updating us!

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 794
RE: 8MP T49 Air war tibit - 12/20/2018 2:59:03 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3636
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: online
Turn 49 27-May-1942 Kadui: Hero Village

The Government of Finland issued a proclamation that Kadui should be honoured as a "Hero Village of Finland"

Soviet airbases were first moved into the swamps of Kadui and its neighbouring hexes on turn 15 and have remained steadfastly there until last turn after which there were some international diplomatic exchanges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS
I have to point out, the freebies here are courtesy of the AI. The I-153s that were bombed had some regiments on day and others night missions. Air doctrine is not an issue, nor is it recon spam, the planes just don't fly. I've believed for some time there is an issue with Soviet planes flying in the north, and this example does not change my opinion.

It was because the Soviet airbases were put in swamp hexes.


quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS
Good point. Thanks.


This turn the airbases were moved out of swamp hexes. Finnish air officers gathered together to drink, sing songs and reminisce their many war stories of bombing the non-flying Soviet air force there. With the airbases moving on it will be an old friend badly missed.

Note that although rivers are frozen and it would seem logical that swamps would be frozen ... swamps are uneffected by weather. Thus defenders get a swamp bonus, MP's are unaffected, and .. aircraft based on air bases based in a swamp will not fly ...






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Crackaces -- 3/20/2019 6:00:20 PM >


_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Beria)
Post #: 795
RE: 8MP T49 Air war tibit - 12/20/2018 3:21:25 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3636
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: online
I spent a small part of my life (and I continue to study) on systems theory. Very simply it is the art of asking "and.." strategically to understand the interaction of variables. I know of no other player with a strategic sense than Telemecus.

The below interaction between Telemecus and I will give you a picture of understanding if I do 'X' it affects 'Y' 'Z' turns from now.

quote:

Crackaces: Read about [migration] last night .. [bombing] does cause migration (not in urban or city after April 1942 ) which has attrition effects. So smacking a level 4 town for free and getting the population to migrate might accumulate over time?

[This behavior is ] counterintuitive.. manpower is a factory [in this game] and takes damage like a factory. In reality the more manpower concentrated the better the target. But the game assumes like a small factory takes more damage than a large one .. a small population center will take more damage. So hitting those level 4 towns you would never attack in reality might be quite lucrative in the game. Especially early where we can force the Soviets to accumulate opportunity costs ...

But you have to accumulate 20% damage on a population of 10 which is much harder than 50% on a 4 .. go figure ... plus the rules have [populations in] towns migrate


quote:

Telemecus: Yes and indeed I think we may be getting to what I expect [to develop into] another exploit. You will see the Rumanian tac bombers and their "bad" short range bombers in Crimea have been bombing the Caucasus. Initially the heavy industry that has now been evacuated from Novorossiysk and now also the port at Temryuk - without that port they cannot amphibious invade in the Azov west of Ak-Manay. But I have also been bombing those level 1 towns and building up large damage levels.

If you look at the Rumanian bombers you will see how their experience has climbed. The SM bomber is now higher experience than the PZL bombers which we had swapped to be our best ones. We had put the Ju86s in the very worst Rumanian level bomber squadron - on XP it is now mid table.

Added to the advantages of bombing small towns on accumulated damage levels and the experience build there is also the efficiency argument. Those level 1 to 4 towns can be much closer to front lines. We can look at places which have multiple villages all on only a 2 or 3 hex bombing run from the front. So our level bombers instead of bombing say something like Kirov at maximum range, could bomb thirty villages twice all 2 to 5 hexes away.

So should a basic Axis play be set up a base with lots of small towns within two to five hexes of the front - and bomb them all turn after turn twice in each hex? It will be the most efficient way of damaging manpower, and of training up our bombers to enormous experience levels. [Should this be] nerfed?

I was actually starting this in the area north of Moscow. You will see there are some villages with bomb damage levels. the key things I was missing are i) Knowing the points on the map we will not go to - no point bombing a village we will not overrun anyway and ii) a manpower spreadsheet to track the losses. But i think this is the next project


This were daily conversations between Telemecus and I. In no way would I be thinking about this game in these terms by playing a solo or vs a single opponent. For example, If you think about it bombing 10 (1) manpower villages is the equivalent to the losses for a major Soviet battle that extends for every turn . The future value of this investment is mind boggling. However, how does this balance with using these resources to bomb other targets?

Every turn Telemecus and I would exchange thoughts that evolved with more information gained with results. Sadly because this game ended on turn 55 we will not see these ideas mature. Because of interactions on this forum and elsewhere … there is a heck of a lot of knowledge that this forum will not be exposed. I am not a very good player .. but I am a better one through these interactions. I say this game gets better when we engage in productive discourse and we all lose when discourse becomes an uncivil mob ...



< Message edited by Crackaces -- 3/20/2019 6:01:07 PM >


_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 796
RE: 8MP T54 AGC closes the center AAR - 12/20/2018 4:16:15 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3636
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: online
So the forums have degraded a bit for reasons in the big picture social scientist are only starting to grasp. I have discussed this with Telemecus and I have decided to do a "Pulp Fiction" out of chronological order portrayal of what happened at the end of this game.

Below shows the results from turn 53. The Oka basin is cleared of pesky Soviets with one unit surrounded. In the area of the red circle the Soviets executed a counterattack routing 3 panzer units. One is still panzer is still in a routed state For the reader .. I have been trying to execute a true gambit since turn 35 with the EvK very smartly countering my moves. This time EvK extends his Cav units out to smack my armor .. but this time now we have an opportunity to crush pesky Cavalry units while threating the collapse of the entire front ..




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 797
RE: 8MP T54 AGC closes the center AAR - 12/20/2018 4:20:25 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3636
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: online
The map below shows that reserve armor is able to surround the pesky cav units .. now a decision .. to hasty attack and seal them off or be content with the situation at hand. Timmyab and Telemecus tell me to go ahead and attack. I am quite reluctant as my calculations say it will likely fail. However, a closer look shows that the risks/benefits are much closer because of attached SU's and the addition of airpower ..




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 798
RE: 8MP T54 AGC closes the center AAR - 12/20/2018 4:40:07 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3636
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: online
The Soviets changed command this turn with EvK and M60 resigning. Chaos45 is taking over.[Actually this never happened as the dialogue descended into the abyss] I am deeply saddened by EvK's stepping back from the game. I hope he continues at a later time. EvK played extremly well and was a challenging opponent. More so, EvK is a class act and will be sorely missed.[As it is EvK's withdrawal kills this game. It takes a fine gentlemen as an opponent for a game to continue]

The turn starts with center having three specific tasks to accomplish.
1) Clean up the South Oka basin. We have 2 units isolated and need to take Ryazan.
2) Reallocate 4th Panzer, 3rd Panzer, and 2nd Panzer Armies to staging positions for the new offense.
3) Repocket Soviet forces that defended forward on turn 52, isolated turn 53.

The turn starts with repocketing the Cavalry units. The battles start with using infantry to move key
Soviet units out of the way. Then the German armor get into position. Now there are 2 hexes of
Germans between about 20,000 Soviets, including Guard’s Cavalry. One tactic I used was to assign mixed
flak into HQ units facing armor. The 88mm has proved effective at killing T34c’s at the cost of 10 88mm
batteries. At the end of the move the entire 4th Panzer army is now near Voronezh. XXXX Corps has
been assigned to 3rd Panzer Army. This will form on turn 55 a pincher movement threatening key
railroad junctions. A mini-turn at the end with the advice (and consent <smile>) of my playing partners we narrow the pocket considerably.
We retreated one unit into a single hex pocket while routing the other unit out due to no place to retreat.

The 3rd Panzer (-) and 2nd panzer Armies move into position to begin the breakout. One corps from 3rd
Panzer with infantry clear 20 miles toward Tambov. Next turn the Center commander plans to threaten
Tambov directly. It will take at least 3 hexes cleared in front of Tambov (1 turn) and then infantry with
MP’s to attack to clear out the light urban hex. Preferably I would want to isolate such a strong target –
fort level 2 and light urban. The minor rivers and strong defensive positions will make this very difficult.
Thus, likely it will be brut force along with heavy artillery to take this strong position.
The German infantry take Ryazan, capture 20,000 Soviets, and secure the Oka basin west of the Pronya
River. One advantage of the Oka behind the Soviets – units retreating and routing across the major river
will take additional attrition the next logistics phase. There are still dangerous forces east of the Pronya
that are supported by Guards just East of the Para river. This bastion will need to be cleared. I hope it
will not take armor, as I am quite committed to Tambov.

So, what’s next? In my opinion the Soviet position is strong but weakening every turn. The Soviets took
112K casualties by the end of my move. From my perspective, the Soviets have not increased their
undamaged manpower deployed in units for at least 5 turns. This turn will be no different. So, I
continue to push a strong offense headlong into strong resistance. The next key hex from my
perspective is 124,62. It is well defended. Sosnovoka is also a key position well defended by Guards
units. I suspect it will take turn 55 to clear this position and cross the Tsna. Then the 2nd Panzer army
can clear the Tsna moving North Northeast without having to negotiating river hexes or enemy ZOC’s,
while the 3rd panzer army (-) with German infantry take Tambov. This takes us to turn 57.
Meanwhile XXXX Corps from 3rd panzer army moves from a southernly position toward Tambov. I hope
this presents a severe threat forcing the Soviets rearward or isolation. The Bityug river is a strong
position I plan to cross at Anna. It will take 2 turns to get to Muchkap . There are 3 Panzer Armies that will be in
position.

The picture below shows the results of turn 54. In particular, I traded some tanks for 3 Guards cav units soon to be destroyed. This is the definition of a gambit. To give something up to gain a better position at a later time One thing about a team game ... my partners were able to point out the airpower and the SU's that possibly could contribute because I had not moved the assigned HQ. The results are shown .. much contribute to the cause ..





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Crackaces -- 12/20/2018 4:41:10 PM >


_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 799
RE: 8MP T54 AGC closes the center AAR - 12/20/2018 5:51:42 PM   
Beria

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 4/6/2017
Status: offline
Not just bedtime reading - this is my holiday reading!

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 800
RE: 8MP T54 AGC closes the center AAR - 2/6/2019 3:40:21 AM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 2371
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
So did this one end?

(in reply to Beria)
Post #: 801
RE: 8MP T54 AGC closes the center AAR - 2/6/2019 2:05:26 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3636
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

So did this one end?


I believe so. We tried to continue, and then Chaos45 accused TheDude357 of cheating, although we went back and reproduced the turns results. I doubt we will ever see him in the forums again. The thing to do was not volunteer in the first place rather than destroy any hope of the game continuing. Then a sort of subterfuge spun in Discord ending any hope of Telemecus participating in new team games.

I think "PBM" Team games requires a great deal of connection between the members of the team and the opponents to work. You are looking at a very long term relationship. It takes maturity and an appreciation for the journey rather the "win." Once EvK quit things fell apart pretty quickly.

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 802
RE: 8MP T54 AGC closes the center AAR - 3/4/2019 6:22:01 PM   
EwaldvonKleist


Posts: 1571
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline
View from the other side of the front:

Excellent AAR with fine graphics and some good jokes between the AAR posts.

When the game started around 2 years ago, the two teams mirrored the historical situation quite well: The Axis team was lead by an experienced player with great management skills (okay, that point is a bit ahistorical) with subordinates who were not all veterans, but played a solid T1 and good follow up turns. Axis team communications appeared to be regular and detailed.

The Soviet team on the other hand was composed of more or less complete rookie (including me). Communication broke down often and was scarce, a coherent strategy not really existent and micromanagement barely happened. Rather than blame Hortlund for that, I do think that it was part of his roleplay vision for the game.

As was to be expected given the conditions of the GC1941 and the differences in the team structure, the first half of the summer of 1941 was a series of defeats. Somehow, the Soviet Union, using its immense recovery abilities, managed to survive until the Blizzard in a very difficult situation, but not completely without options. At least one possible recruit turned down the offer to join the Red Army, stating that he "is not into hopeless missions". However, with M60 a veteran commander came on board in late summer and the team became more efficient.

During the snow time before blizzard in 1941, I was in command of the central front and had to hold a very weak Tula front, feared encirclement and repeatedly requested permission from M60 to retreat. No offensive took place and the stand fast order turned out to be the correct decision, because the Axis declined to use the opportunity. Apparently, the Axis mobile forces were already on the way to the winter quaters in T22? http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4250683&mpage=11&key=

I noticed the Axis built allot of fortified zones. I am sceptical of their use. They draw resources away from combat units and start with low morale and experience, probably taking considerable losses to attrition. I doubt that the bonus for artillery in fortified zones (if existent?) is significant enough to justify the investments. Probably a different doctrine, firepower (Crackaces) vs. raw CV (me).

The Blizzard saw a stand fast defence of the Axis. Initially, I planned to attempt ZOC locks and encirclements in the Tula area, but M60s orders called for a focus on Guards farming. The Axis forward defence limited the Soviet land gain considerably, but helped Guards farming and allowed us to trade losses at a good ratio.
Interestingly, AGC counterattacked much. It was a win-win situation for both sides, as the Axis side could celebrate routed units, while Soviets were encouraged by the good loss ratios. I usually tried to put well rested rifle brigades in the front line to encourage counterattacks on them, as the fatigue level has a huge effect on losses.

After the Blizzard, I personally was very sceptical about the outlook of the game, and was surprised when the snow turns did not end with immediate doom and massive encirclements. Although I of course do not know the detailed Axis situation at this time, I think splitting the armoured attack into two not directly mutually supporting operations was a mistake. At least my greatest fear as the Centre commander was a Panzerballe biting of small chunks of units in a "pacman" strategy, while I welcomed the frontal pushing-back assault in the Tula area.

With snow becoming mud and then clear weather, the situation became increasingly difficult due to the growing mobility of the Axis forces and the slow growth of the Soviet manpower count. That was the situation when I resigned, because I was burned out with WitE at this point and university became more demanding.


Throughout the game, the Axis side heavily used strategic bombing and constantly attacked the Soviet air force. Due to their very good management, initial Soviet non-action in the air and snowball effects, Axis air superiority was secured until summer 1942 and beyond, a major + for them.
If playing the solo, I use spam bombing by Soviet bombers, which causes huge losses, something that simply did not happen here, saving the Axis several dozen k of manpower losses until T50 alone. Not to speak about the operational advantages of air superiority.

The non-air related strategic bombing strategy had mixed results. Armaments and HI bombing was without real effect, as the USSR had an armaments surplus since January 1942 IIRC and never ran short of supplies.
AFV factory bombing effect depended on the equipment type. Strategic bombing simply has zero effect until it actually causes a shortage. So from retroperspective the Axis bombing should have focused on Soviet fighters, light tanks an manpower (preferably small cities along static fronts).


If the above sounds overall critical it is because repeating all the positive things is a bit useless and I am interested in the Axis rationale behind the decisions, and of course it is clearly the Axis side's game to lose here with the Soviets needing luck, strong play and Axis mistakes and iron nerves to turn around the game.

Thanks to the Axis team as a whole for the game, during the entire time I played, you were fine opponents!












< Message edited by EwaldvonKleist -- 3/4/2019 6:53:27 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 803
RE: 8MP T54 AGC closes the center AAR - 3/5/2019 4:57:11 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3636
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

View from the other side of the front:

Excellent AAR with fine graphics and some good jokes between the AAR posts.

When the game started around 2 years ago, the two teams mirrored the historical situation quite well: The Axis team was lead by an experienced player with great management skills (okay, that point is a bit ahistorical) with subordinates who were not all veterans, but played a solid T1 and good follow up turns. Axis team communications appeared to be regular and detailed.

The Soviet team on the other hand was composed of more or less complete rookie (including me). Communication broke down often and was scarce, a coherent strategy not really existent and micromanagement barely happened. Rather than blame Hortlund for that, I do think that it was part of his roleplay vision for the game.

As was to be expected given the conditions of the GC1941 and the differences in the team structure, the first half of the summer of 1941 was a series of defeats. Somehow, the Soviet Union, using its immense recovery abilities, managed to survive until the Blizzard in a very difficult situation, but not completely without options. At least one possible recruit turned down the offer to join the Red Army, stating that he "is not into hopeless missions". However, with M60 a veteran commander came on board in late summer and the team became more efficient.

During the snow time before blizzard in 1941, I was in command of the central front and had to hold a very weak Tula front, feared encirclement and repeatedly requested permission from M60 to retreat. No offensive took place and the stand fast order turned out to be the correct decision, because the Axis declined to use the opportunity. Apparently, the Axis mobile forces were already on the way to the winter quaters in T22? http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4250683&mpage=11&key=

I noticed the Axis built allot of fortified zones. I am sceptical of their use. They draw resources away from combat units and start with low morale and experience, probably taking considerable losses to attrition. I doubt that the bonus for artillery in fortified zones (if existent?) is significant enough to justify the investments. Probably a different doctrine, firepower (Crackaces) vs. raw CV (me).

The Blizzard saw a stand fast defence of the Axis. Initially, I planned to attempt ZOC locks and encirclements in the Tula area, but M60s orders called for a focus on Guards farming. The Axis forward defence limited the Soviet land gain considerably, but helped Guards farming and allowed us to trade losses at a good ratio.
Interestingly, AGC counterattacked much. It was a win-win situation for both sides, as the Axis side could celebrate routed units, while Soviets were encouraged by the good loss ratios. I usually tried to put well rested rifle brigades in the front line to encourage counterattacks on them, as the fatigue level has a huge effect on losses.

After the Blizzard, I personally was very sceptical about the outlook of the game, and was surprised when the snow turns did not end with immediate doom and massive encirclements. Although I of course do not know the detailed Axis situation at this time, I think splitting the armoured attack into two not directly mutually supporting operations was a mistake. At least my greatest fear as the Centre commander was a Panzerballe biting of small chunks of units in a "pacman" strategy, while I welcomed the frontal pushing-back assault in the Tula area.

With snow becoming mud and then clear weather, the situation became increasingly difficult due to the growing mobility of the Axis forces and the slow growth of the Soviet manpower count. That was the situation when I resigned, because I was burned out with WitE at this point and university became more demanding.


Throughout the game, the Axis side heavily used strategic bombing and constantly attacked the Soviet air force. Due to their very good management, initial Soviet non-action in the air and snowball effects, Axis air superiority was secured until summer 1942 and beyond, a major + for them.
If playing the solo, I use spam bombing by Soviet bombers, which causes huge losses, something that simply did not happen here, saving the Axis several dozen k of manpower losses until T50 alone. Not to speak about the operational advantages of air superiority.

The non-air related strategic bombing strategy had mixed results. Armaments and HI bombing was without real effect, as the USSR had an armaments surplus since January 1942 IIRC and never ran short of supplies.
AFV factory bombing effect depended on the equipment type. Strategic bombing simply has zero effect until it actually causes a shortage. So from retroperspective the Axis bombing should have focused on Soviet fighters, light tanks an manpower (preferably small cities along static fronts).


If the above sounds overall critical it is because repeating all the positive things is a bit useless and I am interested in the Axis rationale behind the decisions, and of course it is clearly the Axis side's game to lose here with the Soviets needing luck, strong play and Axis mistakes and iron nerves to turn around the game.

Thanks to the Axis team as a whole for the game, during the entire time I played, you were fine opponents!



First and foremost, thanks to the Soviet team! I througly enjoyed the game while it lasted! One can see that EvK is a formidable opponent!

A couple of comments in response ...

For the forum -- The combat resolution is quite complex. The 2x3 AAR now on the second page of this posting covers this system quite extensively. However, it is worth mentioning some fundamentals. Combat starts with a beginning CV and leadership die rolls, which results in the first adjusted CV. Depending on odds the attack can stop right then and there with a "scout" result. Then the combat system proceeds that each squad and device engages a random squad or device according to a decreasing range from the longest Attacker device. Think of each type of squad or device as a small colored bead, Infantry squad blue, a 105mm gun red, a 150mm gun purple etc. The engine picks one of these devices at random but what is picked is highly influenced by the number of type of squads/devices. If there are 100 purple beads and 1000 blue beads -- a blue bead is 10 times more likely to be picked. Now think a 64 Crayola crayon box of colors grouping different devices and squad types with many random selections within a unit or combined units. This process continues with the range decreasing to the next range band until some magical threshold is reached or the infantry engage. There are three combat results of interest destroyed, damaged, and disrupted. The first two results are quite obvious but the disrupted result is very interesting. A disrupted unit no longer contributes to combat. Pushing the defense back or forcing the offense to a held result does not take killing or damaging -- it only takes disrupting enough devices or squads. Finally, if combat reaches the very end point the total effective CV of both sides are compared and a combat result posted. The real crux of this system takes an understanding of both CV and firepower to master optimizing attacks and defensive situations.

Now to add to EvK's observation. I am a firepower guy. It was my contribution to the team. Fundamentally before I start an attack I try to understand the makeup of the target hexes along with possible committed reserves. Then I commit the right SU's to maximize effect. With the Soviet cavalry it was committing quad 20mm to maximize ROF and maximum number of squads engaged because the cavalry units disrupt easily once engaged on the attack. On the other hand armor units full of KV1's and T34's require 88mm that are in LW mixed and heavy flak units. In general Soviets in the open are dealt with 105's but I like 150 howitzers because of ROF. This logic extends into a very lengthy discussion but I hope it adds to EvK's observation. Although the system does not match the right device to the right target every time -- you can maximize the likelihood this might occur.

There were thoughts for attacks in the Tula area. IN fact one attack got started but the Southern commander needed resources to rescue a salient that crossed the Don. Resources being diverted happens more than once and in a couple of cases at a most inopportune moment. In this AAR I mention rigging up a true gambit and then have the rug pulled out from under me. The last Gambit really worked, but the Soviets unfortunately resigned and we never saw the whole strategy play out.

One thing for the forum is the thought on the use of forts. One advantage of forts on the defense is that you can attach SU's directly to the fort unit. I have played with this a bit in test cases. I have found that the fort level protects the tubes from harm (mostly) while the fort level adds to the accuracy of the attached devices. At level 3 this advantage can be devastating on a number of dimensions. There is no consideration for "real life" ranges or "real life" accuracy given a range. A HEAT round has a range and really does not improve much in real life with registered fire, but in WITE this is not the case. So a 150mm HEAT round engaging a T34 using the fort bonus is very likely to hit and if it does that is one dead tank. From an infantry side disruptions are far more likely. So (3) 12 tube mixed art SU are going to disrupt 96 squads, possibly more, depending on how combat goes. That is a real CV changer as these squads will not contribute towards the final effective CV.

The broad advance rather than the "pacman" approach was an intentional decision. Fundamentally, we figured we could destroy the Soviet army in the Summer. A look at turn 54 shows the jump off points to do so with units surrounded. Once I secured the use of multiple Panzer armies that were not going to be pulled away -- the most important objective was: 1) secure the Oka-Para river line; 2) secure advanced rail line for airbases; and, 3) secure jump off points for securing Tambov and key rail lines to make the Soviets rail LOC as untenable North to South as possible. That mission was accomplished on turn 54.

One thing about how the center advanced. One can put pressure on an objective and threaten isolation forcing a retreat. This was an overall operational consideration for AGC. Attack in places and show armor that could potentially isolate units in a "Pacman" type attack. The Soviets often obliged by retreating from the objective.

Finally (in this post) strategic bombing and routing units. I might offer that strategic bombing does not yield instant results. Rather, focusing on certain targets accumulates over time in opportunity costs. Ten tanks not produced over 100 turns is 1000 tanks not produced. The argument might be that it does not matter as in 1944 the Soviets have so much stuff they can disband units. We did not feel that would be the case given the OOB. This leads to why to rout units. The instant battle result was pretty favorable to the Soviet. The German's were taking battle casualties and winter attrition. But, the next logistics phase told another story as devices and squads take die rolls for additional damage. Then there is the cost of morale and being unready for some number of turns. In our minds that was a long term benefit.

It was one hell of a match up!



_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)
Post #: 804
RE: 8MP T54 AGC closes the center AAR - 3/5/2019 6:26:17 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 3095
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Finally (in this post) strategic bombing and routing units. I might offer that strategic bombing does not yield instant results. Rather, focusing on certain targets accumulates over time in opportunity costs. Ten tanks not produced over 100 turns is 1000 tanks not produced.


Strategic bombing is a pipe dream now that Recon spamming has been nerfed. Recon spamming was the PRIMARY reason the strategic bombing campaign took off in this game.

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 3/5/2019 6:28:59 PM >


_____________________________

Space we can recover; time never

Napoleon

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 805
RE: 8MP T54 AGC closes the center AAR - 3/5/2019 7:20:47 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 2482
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: online
Recon spam had virtually no impact at all.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 806
RE: 8MP T54 AGC closes the center AAR - 3/5/2019 9:43:16 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 3095
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TELEMECUS
quote:

original: HardLuckYetAgain
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Finally (in this post) strategic bombing and routing units. I might offer that strategic bombing does not yield instant results. Rather, focusing on certain targets accumulates over time in opportunity costs. Ten tanks not produced over 100 turns is 1000 tanks not produced.


Strategic bombing is a pipe dream now that Recon spamming has been nerfed. Recon spamming was the PRIMARY reason the strategic bombing campaign took off in this game.

Recon spam had virtually no impact at all.


As I said, “Strategic bombing is a pipe dream now that recon spamming has been nerfed”. As for not having no impact at all. Maybe that was the case early in the game before M60 took over. But after M60 took over why then are these two photos posted in the Soviet AAR against your team with 69 & 75 recons on a hex? That TO ME is proof enough of the recon spamming to fatigue Soviet fighters in this game. There is litterly no reason to fly this many missions of recon other than to fatigue Soviets. Once fatigued enough you fly bombers unmolested which can be seen in many of the AAR’s photos. I am just glad this has been taken out of the game now.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 3/5/2019 9:44:42 PM >


_____________________________

Space we can recover; time never

Napoleon

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 807
RE: 8MP T54 AGC closes the center AAR - 3/5/2019 9:47:14 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 3095
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
I can only guess what was being searched for if it wasn’t to fatigue Soviet fighters.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Space we can recover; time never

Napoleon

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 808
RE: 8MP T54 AGC closes the center AAR - 3/5/2019 10:25:04 PM   
EwaldvonKleist


Posts: 1571
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline
@Crackaces: Your writing about firepoer for sure made me more aware of the topic. Although I would argue it is more significant for the Soviet side which relies more on attrition by frontal combat. But also good to consider for the Axis side too.

Re routing units, from my feeling/knowledge having a unit routed is not too much of a problem because it can recover in the rear without contact to enemy forces. But I did not conduct detailed tests. I was also very satisfied with loss ratios even if you include damaged equipment, as the Axis side suffered too from attrition. The definitive answer will need more tests.
Re morale, I am not sure if the morale hit from routing is that much worse than from retreating. As we operated close to NM most of the time it was not much of a factor.

Thanks for the detailed reply Crackaces!

quote:

Strategic bombing is a pipe dream now that Recon spamming has been nerfed. Recon spamming was the PRIMARY reason the strategic bombing campaign took off in this game.


quote:

Recon spam had virtually no impact at all

I disagree with both views.

I think strat bombing can very well be more than a pipe dream without recon spamming and the factory expansion buff, especially as there was further improvement in the pipeline by the Axis team, I do not like such vague allusions usually but it is the inventor's honour to post it and that is not me. It does not require complete air dominance as in this game for strategic bombing to be successful, and be it to keep the air force occupied during mud turns or for training purposes. It will have to stop at some point when the Sovs have crushing fighter superiority everyhwere, but it takes time to get to this point.


However, although it is definitely not the primary reason for the air war imbalance in this game, recon spam did have an effect. I recall several occations where it helped to fatigue Soviet fighters to the point where they did not respond to attacks, or did so without much effect.



< Message edited by EwaldvonKleist -- 3/5/2019 10:29:42 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 809
RE: 8MP T54 AGC closes the center AAR - 3/5/2019 11:00:32 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 3095
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

@Crackaces: Your writing about firepoer for sure made me more aware of the topic. Although I would argue it is more significant for the Soviet side which relies more on attrition by frontal combat. But also good to consider for the Axis side too.

Re routing units, from my feeling/knowledge having a unit routed is not too much of a problem because it can recover in the rear without contact to enemy forces. But I did not conduct detailed tests. I was also very satisfied with loss ratios even if you include damaged equipment, as the Axis side suffered too from attrition. The definitive answer will need more tests.
Re morale, I am not sure if the morale hit from routing is that much worse than from retreating. As we operated close to NM most of the time it was not much of a factor.

Thanks for the detailed reply Crackaces!

quote:

Strategic bombing is a pipe dream now that Recon spamming has been nerfed. Recon spamming was the PRIMARY reason the strategic bombing campaign took off in this game.


quote:

Recon spam had virtually no impact at all

I disagree with both views.

I think strat bombing can very well be more than a pipe dream without recon spamming and the factory expansion buff, especially as there was further improvement in the pipeline by the Axis team, I do not like such vague allusions usually but it is the inventor's honour to post it and that is not me. It does not require complete air dominance as in this game for strategic bombing to be successful, and be it to keep the air force occupied during mud turns or for training purposes. It will have to stop at some point when the Sovs have crushing fighter superiority everyhwere, but it takes time to get to this point.


However, although it is definitely not the primary reason for the air war imbalance in this game, recon spam did have an effect. I recall several occations where it helped to fatigue Soviet fighters to the point where they did not respond to attacks, or did so without much effect.




I can pretty much shut down or cause great casualties to any Strategic bombing a German does after turn 4 of the game. I can say that with confidence without the Recon spamming to fatigue Soviet fighters. I have no illusions or allusions this can be accomplished even if losing close to 7k airframes on turn 1.

_____________________________

Space we can recover; time never

Napoleon

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)
Post #: 810
Page:   <<   < prev  25 26 [27] 28 29   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: 8MP T49 Page: <<   < prev  25 26 [27] 28 29   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

0.192