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: Turn 137: 27 January – 2 February 1944

 
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: Turn 137: 27 January – 2 February 1944 Page: <<   < prev  15 16 17 18 [19]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Turn 137: 27 January – 2 February 1944 - 3/13/2016 8:01:00 AM   
loki100


Posts: 6937
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

that looks ugly for him.
Whenever I started thinking about the right moment to retreat, I came to the conclusion that I should have gone allready long before. ..


with both sides this is always the hardest thing to judge. Sillyflower put it well in another thread - 'anybody can run away, the skill is knowing when to stop'. In a way the reverse is true too, in that judging when to turn a sucessful defense into a retreat is hard.

I think vigabrand under-estimated what I was up to in the Pripyet so suddenly finding a cluster of tank and shock armies pretty much across his rear was not expected.

His bigger problem (I think) is he has to fight now. Ideally he needs to stop me making any gains for a few turns (before mud). In turn I am looking over the map for objectives that will make my life easier in the summer - in particular key bridgeheads that reduce the impact of any north-south river lines.

At a tactical level, the big change is that his Pzrs are now chained to the infantry - especially here. If he pulls them away to try and cut me off, then his infantry are very vulnerable.

At the moment, as far as I can see from recon, everything from Vinnitsa to Lvov is empty of German units, once I move 4 UKr to this area around Vinnitsa, I can free up my tanks for a lunge west ... my hope is that at that stage he faces a series of unpleasant choices about what to do with his Pzrs (or has to weaken his defences north of the Pripyet which brings problems as well)

_____________________________


(in reply to Wuffer)
Post #: 541
RE: Turn 137: 27 January – 2 February 1944 - 3/13/2016 3:14:29 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Nice operation.

If Germans can't "hold" during winter 43/44 (1 hex retreat basicly) they are in deep trouble.

Good Job

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 542
RE: Turn 133: 30 December 1943 – 5 January 1944 - 3/14/2016 9:00:03 AM   
RKhan


Posts: 315
Joined: 1/17/2016
From: My Secret Bunker
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

Those are staggering tank losses! I can't imagine you can maintain that pace very long. I'm out of touch with WITE so what has changed recently that has made your tank losses so great?


the new patch has a rule designed to reduce German tank losses in 1941 - not sure why as I've never seen a debate on this issue or anybody raising it as a problem. The impact by this stage of the game is quite silly Soviet tank losses. I am going to run out of tanks in a few months while the German Pzr divisions grow ever larger.

I think its fair to say I am none too happy - not least I really fail to understand what problem this change is meant to be solving, or where the underlying lobbying for such a change came from.


After a game is released each change ought to have a well established rationale. This is what happens when there isn't one.

It is especially dangerous in a complex game engine like this one.

I have previously accepted the house rule to upgrade to the latest patch to remove known exploits. Perhaps such a blanket acceptance is not such a good idea.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 543
RE: Turn 133: 30 December 1943 – 5 January 1944 - 3/14/2016 6:44:34 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6937
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RKhan

After a game is released each change ought to have a well established rationale. This is what happens when there isn't one.

It is especially dangerous in a complex game engine like this one.

I have previously accepted the house rule to upgrade to the latest patch to remove known exploits. Perhaps such a blanket acceptance is not such a good idea.


I'd say be cautious with patches in a long standing game. I lost one when the switch from .07 to the .08 series meant that the old industrial evacuation strategy (the ratio of HI:arms pts) was effectively reversed. So its always worth sitting back for a week or so and see what people are saying.

Pelton does a lot of the patch testing but from what he's said that seems to only be the first seven turns from the German perspective - so its not that helpful for catching play balance issues in existing games.

I'm ok that the patches do more than bug squash but I think they have to be an attempt to address issues widely shared on the forum. Over the last 2, we've had the invincible Luftwaffe (effectively no airbase bombing) effect and now the invincible Pzr has been created. I can't recall any argument that in some way German tank losses are too low in the game so I really struggle to understand what this is meant to be solving.

To be honest these massive shifts in the rules have put me off starting any more campaigns for WiTE - I am fed up that games started on set of assumptions are being undermined. This decision to make German Pzrs invincible (and generally lower German losses) is really taking away any enjoyment. If I lose an attack (or am beaten when defending), I easily lose 50+ tanks, if I win ... and get very lucky ... I might destroy 4-5 German tanks but more likely is none destroyed and a small number damaged.

The effect in this game is my opponent can build fantastically strong stacks. Despite constant pressure his tank numbers increase, he has 30+cv Pzr divisions and I've just stumbled over a 48cv GD division. Now that one has morale bonuses and no doubt has the ToE slots to take on a lot of equipment, but that level of equipment is just complete fantasy. In the meantime I carry on losing 800-1000 tanks a week and my tank numbers are steadily declining.


< Message edited by loki100 -- 3/14/2016 10:52:18 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to RKhan)
Post #: 544
counting tanks - 3/16/2016 1:39:18 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6937
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
As maybe clear the recent invention of the invincible Panzer in the last patch is not something I am enjoying. Now we are told its all to help balance 1941 – I'll pass no comment on that. Apart from to note that since most players now don't use the Soviet +1 I wasn't aware that anybody was arguing that German tank losses were too high even at that stage?

Having said all that I wanted to have a better look at what is really going on.

Since it is not easy to work out what is a tank and how the various combat reports treat tanks, self-propelled guns, APCs etc, I've done some digging.

The first two images are the summary loss tables from this game. I've taken two periods for comparison.

T104-T119 was a period when there was a lot of fighting started at Orel and the Dombas and ending with vigabrand's retreat behind the Dneipr (effectively ending major operations). All this was under .08.07.

The second block T131-T145 covers my winter offensive and is all under .08.08.





I know this is not like with like but some points for context.

In the first period I won about 60% of all the battles (including when I was on the defensive). I lost 3 Mech/Tank corps and 2 Cavalry Corps in pockets. All these had additional SU attachments so probably add up to around 900 tanks.

In the second period I have won around 75-80% of all battles. I have lost 1 Mech and 1 Tank corp in a pocket. So say around 600 tanks.

In the first period, the axis lost 800 AFVs and I lost 7,300. So lets say a ratio of 9-1.

In the second period, the axis lost 1,800 AFVs and I lost 14,000. So lets say a ratio of 8.5-1.

So in a period where the Germans have started to lose battles more often and I have had very few destroyed units, the rough ratio is much the same.

I then dug into just the tank/spa losses. As you can see the Germans lost 550 in the first period and 1,250 in the second. I lost 7,570 and 11,065 respectively.



< Message edited by loki100 -- 3/16/2016 1:40:30 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 545
T138: 3 – 9 February 1944 - 3/16/2016 1:44:33 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6937
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
T138: 3 – 9 February 1944

Operation Kutuzov

In the north the Soviet offensive had mixed results. A determined German counter-attack isolated the armoured elements of 1 Shock Army effectively sealing their fate.


(I've added the divisional designation of the German armoured formations and their CV – at the end of my turn)

However, this was partially offset by gains elsewhere.

28 Army took advantage of the disruption to almost cut off Riga to the south of the Dauga.

More importantly, 1 Baltic's 20 Army occupied Minsk. All the capitals of the 1939 Republics were now back in Soviet hands. As the Germans had fallen back to a new defensive line the only fighting on this sector was limited. Western Front continued to disrupt the southern flank of the German line.


(elements of 20 Army in Minsk)

Operation Suvorov

In the Ukraine, the Soviet offensive gained momentum as the Germans had to weaken some sectors in order to stop what appeared to be the most dangerous attacks.

North Caucasus Front now faced no German mobile units and struck south along the Sinyukhla. The immediate goal was to isolate the German strongpoint east of Uman. The main goal was to force the Hungarian and Romanian units in the south to fall back, allowing the Soviets to push up to Odessa and the Dneistr.

In combination, 3 and 4 Guards Armies managed to encircle the Germans.



At that stage, 7 Tank Army was committed and forced the main German force back further isolating the trapped formations.



1 Ukrainian continued to attack to the west rather than north in an attempt to further disrupt the German salient at Kiev. By 6 February, 4 Tank Army had advanced 30 miles splitting the German formations in the south from those in the north.

In turn 40 Army launched a raid deep into the German rear area reaching the outskirts of Vinnitsa and cutting all their rail connections.


(again I've noted the CV of the German armoured units at the end of my turn)

Elsewhere the Front reorganised, handing over its eastern flank to 1 Bielorussian Front and resting key formations.


(5 Tank Army having a short break)



Losses remained high. The Germans lost 47,000 men (21,000 kia), 125 tanks and 220 planes (many over-run on their airbases). Soviet losses were 63,000 men (34,000 kia), 1,300 tanks and 270 planes.

I think that is the third time I've over-run a lot of Luftwaffe bases, not sure how good German production is at this stage of the war but it must be making an impact.



< Message edited by loki100 -- 3/16/2016 1:45:45 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 546
RE: T138: 3 – 9 February 1944 - 3/16/2016 2:49:21 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11745
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
This is from my first 10 turns, AI vs AI test done for each version of the game.

Campaign 1941-45
AFV lost under 1.08.08: Axis 871, Soviet 8534
AFV lost under 1.08.09: Axis 1003, Soviet 8057
ratio 9.79 -> 8.03

Campaign 1942-45
AFV lost under 1.08.08: Axis 361, Soviet 2181
AFV lost under 1.08.09: Axis 390, Soviet 2080
ratio 6.04 -> 5.33

Stalingrad to Berlin, first 10 turns, AI vs AI
AFV lost under 1.08.08: Axis 502, Soviet 5574
AFV lost under 1.08.09: Axis 718, Soviet 5072
ratio 11.10 -> 7.06

Vistula to Berlin, first 10 turns, AI vs AI
AFV lost under 1.08.08: Axis 1053, Soviet 3518
AFV lost under 1.08.09: Axis 1628, Soviet 3732
ratio 3.34 -> 2.29

This is from an older version of .09, and losses were toned down a bit, but I had no time yet to record casualties from last night runs. But you see the general trend.

There is an interesting spike in Soviet tank losses mid-war (especially in GC 43, not listed here because I have to confirm it first in multiple tests), and I think it can be attributed to the fact that German tanks improve a lot between 1941 and 1943, while Soviets just churn out huge amounts of nearly the same model of T-34, and the modern tanks (T-34 M1944, heavy ISes and ISUs) start to have impact only in second half of 1944. So in the period when they are going to the offensive, the Soviets have to fight with their tanks being outclassed, despite having better organization and morale and experience than in 1941, while facing German AT defenses upgraded to 75 and 88 mm guns, Panzerfausts, Panthers, Tigers, long-barreled IVs, and various other heavy contraptions like the Ferdinand. That's why the early Soviet attack period (late 42-43) sees highest Soviet tank losses, which are later reduced when new models come online and the quality gap closes.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 547
RE: T138: 3 – 9 February 1944 - 3/16/2016 5:58:05 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 2970
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
Looking at some individual battle results, Loki is using too many tanks and not enough infantry. If you don't outnumber the bad guys by 3:1 you are more apt to see elevated tank losses.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 548
RE: T138: 3 – 9 February 1944 - 3/16/2016 8:46:43 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6937
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

Looking at some individual battle results, Loki is using too many tanks and not enough infantry. If you don't outnumber the bad guys by 3:1 you are more apt to see elevated tank losses.


I've seen you make this point in another thread. Didn't respond there but I'll try to answer here.

There are several reasons why I'd disagree with your claim. First I tend to put in a very small sample of the battle reports into a post .. usually those that suit the narrative I am putting together. In that turn, looking at the commanders report there were 25 battles (incl 6 where the Germans attacked). I see little merit to putting in every combat result but there were plenty of wins at 3+-1 and I still lost 1000+ AFVs. I can lose 10-15 attacking a Security regiment with a Gds Mech Corps.

Second, my opponent is very adept at not hanging around, so if I waited for the infantry he'd have an easy time of it. So in that sense I am making a choice - trade off my armour for operational tempo.

Note I am not complaining at the Soviet losses as such. I agree with Morvael that from Spring 43 to Spring 44 the T34 was badly outclassed. Made worse as the Soviets were often on the offensive so they couldn't use ambush style tactics to compensate. What I've been pointing to is that when I take those losses there is very little effect on the Germans. One reason why I added the CV for the Pzr/PzrGr formations is it'll make it easier to track. But I now that 38 CV GD will become a 48 CV monster by T 145

_____________________________


(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 549
RE: T138: 3 – 9 February 1944 - 3/16/2016 9:13:33 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 2970
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
I'll just address 2nd and last point. Yes, tank losses are higher when the infantry can't keep up. That is why I lost so many tanks in winter 43-44 vs Dave as the mobile corps had to lead.

Don't worry about what CV of the GD is. It's one unit and even though other panzers are high CV, it's the collapse of his infantry that will make his panzer strength a moot point.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 550
RE: T138: 3 – 9 February 1944 - 3/17/2016 9:14:13 AM   
Wuffer

 

Posts: 386
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline
Loki, what's the average experience of your tank crews now? I fear a snowball problem, too, even exaggerated by the battle design (everyone firing at everyone, meaning that ALL AT guns could engage the tanks, while in reality the attacker would of course not advange in a 10 mile broad front)

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 551
RE: T138: 3 – 9 February 1944 - 3/17/2016 1:42:54 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6937
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

Loki, what's the average experience of your tank crews now? I fear a snowball problem, too, even exaggerated by the battle design (everyone firing at everyone, meaning that ALL AT guns could engage the tanks, while in reality the attacker would of course not advange in a 10 mile broad front)


this is from T145 but shows the basic position. The 3 units at the bottom of the list were all destroyed and came back during the winter battles, but mostly the experience levels are pretty decent?






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Wuffer)
Post #: 552
RE: T138: 3 – 9 February 1944 - 3/18/2016 11:36:19 AM   
Wuffer

 

Posts: 386
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline
Thanks. Maybe I should have been more clearly: In the light of a forensic attitude towards the mass killings of your tanks, we need obviously more attension to the smallest details :-)

• what is the experience of your tank crews instead of the whole unit?
• who is the main culprit? Assuming your tankers were neither drunken nor destroyed public property intentionally - who kills them? AT guns or hundreds of microbic panzerfausts or ... the spanish inquisition??
:-)


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 553
RE: T138: 3 – 9 February 1944 - 3/18/2016 12:37:03 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6937
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

Thanks. Maybe I should have been more clearly: In the light of a forensic attitude towards the mass killings of your tanks, we need obviously more attension to the smallest details :-)

• what is the experience of your tank crews instead of the whole unit?
• who is the main culprit? Assuming your tankers were neither drunken nor destroyed public property intentionally - who kills them? AT guns or hundreds of microbic panzerfausts or ... the spanish inquisition??
:-)



Heres 3 Tank Corps - from left to right the one with the highest average experience, the median experience and the lowest average experience.

Its not the tankers as such, as you can see the medium tanks have experience in the range from 79 to 62 to 63. The fluctuations are bigger for the supporting infantry.

No idea what is doing the damage. I'm running most attacks at #1 speed. If it was WiTW I could dig back into the combat results and work out what is causing the damage.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Wuffer)
Post #: 554
Turn 139: 10 – 16 February 1944 - 3/18/2016 4:41:31 PM   
loki100


Posts: 6937
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
Turn 139: 10 – 16 February 1944

Operation Kutuzov

Here the German front finally cracked under the pressure. With Riga threatened with encirclement, the Germans fell back towards the Latvian-Lithuanian border. In the west, they also fell back into western Bielorussia. North of the Pripyet, almost all the pre-1939 Soviet Union had been liberated.



With the liberation of Riga and Minsk, Stavka declared the Kutusov was over. The various front commanders were summoned to Moscow to receive their orders for the next phase of the Soviet offensive.

Operation Suvorov

Faced with 1 Ukrainian Front's steady progress in the previous week, the Germans struck back all along the front.




(Soviet infantry briefly on the defensive)

However, to achieve this meant they had stripped their northern flank. 3 Ukrainian took full advantage. 40 Army carved out a corridor to rescue its formations trapped near Vinnitsa.



Then 3 and 5 Tank combined with the rest of 40 Army to swing back to the east [1] cutting off all the German units falling back from Kiev. The encirclement was complete when 1 Ukrainian committed 1, 4 and 6 Tank Armies to a narrow attack that splintered the main German front.




(6 Tank Army's spearheads)

To the south, North Caucasus Front not only encircled the Germans at Uman but pushed back their main line.




To add to the pressure facing the German army in the Ukriane, the first elements of 4 Ukrainian Front deployed near Zhitomir. Over the next week, 3 Ukrainian was ordered to swing west leaving 4 Ukrainian to place the main German defences under pressure.

OOB




The Germans lost 48,000 men (24,000 kia), 180 tanks and 220 planes. Soviet losses were 80,000 men (30,000 kia, 36,000 prisoners), 1,500 tanks (400 in a pocket) and 280 planes.


[1] Despite the very hard to resist temptation to go west ....

_____________________________


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 555
RE: Turn 139: 10 – 16 February 1944 - 3/19/2016 2:03:13 AM   
Wuffer

 

Posts: 386
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline
so, what was the issue yet?
anyway, obviously solved by getting down to the nitty-gritty, LOL

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 556
RE: Turn 139: 10 – 16 February 1944 - 9/2/2016 2:30:51 PM   
pbhawkin1

 

Posts: 158
Joined: 4/4/2001
From: Mudgee, Australia
Status: offline
Is this thread continued on somewhere?


_____________________________

Regards

(in reply to Wuffer)
Post #: 557
RE: Turn 139: 10 – 16 February 1944 - 9/2/2016 3:42:58 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 1984
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pbhawkins

Is this thread continued on somewhere?


As far as I remember the game ended at about this point when the Axis player launched a massive counter-offensive that destroyed a large part of the Soviet army in the South.
I can't remember where I read that. I thought it was on this AAR.

(in reply to pbhawkin1)
Post #: 558
RE: Turn 139: 10 – 16 February 1944 - 9/2/2016 4:07:08 PM   
VigaBrand

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline
It ended, because the I (Axis player) benefit from all patches during our game and in the end, I had some 40+ CV Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions which was a big problem.
Soviet NM was cut in '42, Axis NM was increase after 1943, Axis tanks get the "unvisible tankshield" and was nearly undestroyable. We had tank battles in which Loki lost to many tanks because of this (compare to my tank losses and the production).
So Loki and I agreed to finish this (Lokis was frustrated, but every patch works against him and in my favor).

_____________________________




(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 559
RE: Turn 139: 10 – 16 February 1944 - 9/3/2016 12:54:38 AM   
pbhawkin1

 

Posts: 158
Joined: 4/4/2001
From: Mudgee, Australia
Status: offline
Ok thanks.
SO my follow up question then is did patches after 1.08.08 such as 1.08.09 1nd later address this?

_____________________________

Regards

(in reply to VigaBrand)
Post #: 560
RE: Turn 139: 10 – 16 February 1944 - 9/3/2016 8:32:44 AM   
VigaBrand

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline
Yes, the later patches change this, so that it is now better.


_____________________________




(in reply to pbhawkin1)
Post #: 561
RE: Turn 139: 10 – 16 February 1944 - 9/3/2016 11:47:07 AM   
pbhawkin1

 

Posts: 158
Joined: 4/4/2001
From: Mudgee, Australia
Status: offline
Ok thanks.
And what a great AAR by Loki100 as well as a great battle the two of you fought. Well done.

_____________________________

Regards

(in reply to VigaBrand)
Post #: 562
Page:   <<   < prev  15 16 17 18 [19]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Turn 137: 27 January – 2 February 1944 Page: <<   < prev  15 16 17 18 [19]
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

0.188