Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Turn 16: 2-8 October 1941

 
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 >> Turn 16: 2-8 October 1941 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Turn 16: 2-8 October 1941 - 5/18/2015 8:07:26 AM   
loki100


Posts: 7496
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
Turn 16: 2-8 October 1941

(short report as I made a mess of both taking screenshots and saving the turn – ie I forgot to do both so only have the turn as it arrived not after my moves).

In the north the Germans completed the isolation of Leningrad but did not press their attack on the exhausted Soviet formations falling back behind Tikhvin. In an attempt to improve morale in the cut off city, Stavka awarded Guards status to two of the divisions now trying to defend the birthplace of the revolution [1].



The Orel-Tula sector saw intense fighting as the Germans tried to seal the pocket around Orel and make progress through the multiple Soviet defensive lines around Tula. Stavka again committed the bulk of reinforcements to rebuilding Western Front to protect Moscow's southern flank.


(Soviet defensive positions near Tula)

In the south, the Germans finally hit at the weakened SW Front, encircling most of 5 Army at Kursk. However, a localised Soviet counterattack managed to re-open a supply line to the trapped units.

In the lower Dneipr battles, the main Soviet loss was Leonid Bobkin who was killed in a car accident [2] as the Germans pressed eastwards towards Stalino. Their spearheads were just 30 miles from the key industrial region as they engaged with the outer defences of 50 Army.




[1] Last turn, really for something to do, I'd attacked across the Neva and beat up a regiment of the 'Blue' Division. It appears that if a unit has no losses, it is just possible (if very unlikely) for it to reach the Gds threshold with 1 win (if you play with no +1 and mild winter).
[2] Rumours that his car had been recently serviced by specialist NKVD mechanics are, of course, completely false. But his army is no where near the Germans so this was a bit of a surprise.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With Leningrad now abandoned, the war became very personal. Communications were still intact and U2s and fast Pe-2s were able to evade German air cover, so key personnel were sent back and forth. Of course, for the bulk of the population, there was no escape and food was already becoming very scarce.



I hoped that my sister might be among those evacuated, but at this stage Stavka was refusing to admit the city was lost. Defending divisions were promoted to Gds status in an attempt to encourage resistance and Leningrad and North Western Fronts were apparently preparing a counterattack.

Even from the signals we knew this was false. Leningrad Front had been shattered in the Volkhov battles and needed time to rest and refit.

_____________________________


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 61
RE: Turn 16: 2-8 October 1941 - 5/18/2015 8:15:36 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11753
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Large food reserves in form of a Hippo

By his death, Bobkin sabotaged the war effort of Soviet Union. And that means he was a traitor. No need to find out why he betrayed the Motherland. Case solved.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 62
RE: Turn 16: 2-8 October 1941 - 5/18/2015 2:51:13 PM   
lowtech

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 5/13/2015
Status: offline
It's a fair cop!

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 63
RE: Turn 16: 2-8 October 1941 - 5/24/2015 2:08:50 PM   
loki100


Posts: 7496
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Large food reserves in form of a Hippo

By his death, Bobkin sabotaged the war effort of Soviet Union. And that means he was a traitor. No need to find out why he betrayed the Motherland. Case solved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lowtech

It's a fair cop!


do wonder if the beast survived the real siege? Can't imagine it was enjoying itself?

Suspect you are right about Bobkin, he was clearly a traitor even if just by having a car accident 100km to the rear


_____________________________


(in reply to lowtech)
Post #: 64
Turns 17-21: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/24/2015 2:11:05 PM   
loki100


Posts: 7496
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
Turns 17-21: 9 October – 12 November 1941

Combat Operations

By the 9 October it became clear the Germans had suspended their offensive. Fighting carried on around Kursk were elements of 5 Army were trapped. A small Soviet counterattack opened the pocket on 12 October but the Germans were able to re-assert their control soon afterwards.


[1]

With autumn rains came a complete cessation of combat operations. However, taking advantage of holding the Crimea, Stavka commenced a sustained air attack on the Ploesti oil fields. Even if this did no real damage to the combat capacity of the Wehrmacht, it served to remind the Romanian leadership that the Soviet state could extract a high price for their invasion.




(Il-4 in action over Romania)

Finally 6 November brought the first snows of winter. Not trusting the German intentions, Stavka ordered the current front to be held. By the end of the week, it became clear that the Germans had fallen back to the frontline of early September. With this, Stavka ordered a cautious advance to bring the two armies back into contact.

Industrial Situation

By the end of November, the Soviets had managed to complete the first wave of factory evacuations towards the Urals. Few factories had been lost, mainly due to the constant counter-attacks that managed to delay the Germans by a few weeks here and there, or relieve the pressure on a key industrial city.

17 Heavy Industry and 29 Armaments Factories had been lost.



Substantial industrial capacity remained around Moscow and the Eastern Ukraine but this would be moved in the early winter.

Stavka had planned to ensure it retained 200 HI, 370 Arms Points and all 140 truck factories. In reality it seemed as if the long term industrial capacity was going to be 219 HI, 411 Arms Points and 140 trucks.

The key question is what does this mean going forward. The data below is from my AI game where I have 215 HI but it helps identify likely dynamics in most games.

First shows the % General Supply line. I could have picked out other metrics but this one seems to work as a proxy for overall trends.

Key thing is that by late 1942 and early 1943 I was having real problems and had to cut back on production. Mainly as my army was relatively large and you have so much demand for the production of armament points.



Next two lines show army and artillery size (this as it has a real impact on ammunition expenditure).





Finally I've shown two of the consumption lines, that used up in units and that used in ammunition production.



I like the way you can track the intensity of the fighting but also the impact of adding more artillery. Supply usage by unit has collapsed over the last 2 turns as this is the first time I've had mud and a real gap to my rail heads. That will recover in the near future.

The real issue is how to interpret this. The key point seemed to be late 1942/early 1943 (I know have masses of arms pts and supply in reserve). From comments on my last game, the critical point seems to be if general supply < 200%. So my army in this game would have been ok with about 200 HI (compared to my 215), just that would have forced a few more choices about allocation to production. A normal PBEM army (say around 7.8-8m) at the end of 1942 would need about 190 HI. Anything less and there will be a need to make some substantial choices about supply allocation – including not attacking to save ammunition.

[1] – Goal here is to breed Guards

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last doubts as to the fate of Leningrad were confirmed. Malinovsky and his staff were transferred to Bryansk Front's 40 Army as Stavka built up its forces south of Tula.




< Message edited by loki100 -- 5/27/2015 11:07:15 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 65
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/24/2015 4:06:07 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Great info.

Seeing your the expert in this area I have a question.

How big of an army would 135 hvy and 275 arm be able to support?

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 66
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/24/2015 8:36:22 PM   
loki100


Posts: 7496
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Great info.

Seeing your the expert in this area I have a question.

How big of an army would 135 hvy and 275 arm be able to support?


make no claims to expertise, just interested in trying to get some simple 'good enough' rules set out.

A few key ratios.

First total army size is a very good proxy for supply demanded within units. The correlation is about 94%, so while there is a lot going on, in truth you can rely on army size: unit supply consumption as the core ratio.

To put this into context, every 200 men want just over 1 unit of supply (its actually 1.01).

Equally very roughly, 34% of all supply goes into production (I have a rough average of 95% of potential production being produced so this could be a little higher or a fair bit lower).

In 1942, 18% of supply goes to arms pts building, in 1942 this drops to 15% - assume that is due to the more stable Soviet ToEs at that stage (also in my game all I've built in 1943 is some specialist artillery, eng brigades and mech corps).

Each pt of HI will support 1.6 pts of arms pts.
Each pt of HI produces on average 512 supply units in 1942 and 641 in 1943.

So if you have 135 HI, any APts over 200 are effectively wasted (this was the problem I got into in my game with SigUp).

If your game is in 1943 then 135 HI * 641 = 86,300 (plus LL). Lets say 30,000 goes on production, whats left needs to produce ammunition (very variable) and fortifications. I think the key ratio here is that ammo + forts cost about 35,000 per turn. So that would leave 21,000 to supply an army, by my ratio roughly 4.2 million.

To this needs to be added LL, and that you can reduce production substantially, certainly by mid-43 you don't need that many arms pts till the 1944 ToEs start. But given that you need all those other things (even forts to protect your advance), I don't think you could supply much over 5 million?



_____________________________


(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 67
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/24/2015 9:39:19 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Great info.

Seeing your the expert in this area I have a question.

How big of an army would 135 hvy and 275 arm be able to support?


make no claims to expertise, just interested in trying to get some simple 'good enough' rules set out.

A few key ratios.

First total army size is a very good proxy for supply demanded within units. The correlation is about 94%, so while there is a lot going on, in truth you can rely on army size: unit supply consumption as the core ratio.

To put this into context, every 200 men want just over 1 unit of supply (its actually 1.01).

Equally very roughly, 34% of all supply goes into production (I have a rough average of 95% of potential production being produced so this could be a little higher or a fair bit lower).

In 1942, 18% of supply goes to arms pts building, in 1942 this drops to 15% - assume that is due to the more stable Soviet ToEs at that stage (also in my game all I've built in 1943 is some specialist artillery, eng brigades and mech corps).

Each pt of HI will support 1.6 pts of arms pts.
Each pt of HI produces on average 512 supply units in 1942 and 641 in 1943.

So if you have 135 HI, any APts over 200 are effectively wasted (this was the problem I got into in my game with SigUp).

If your game is in 1943 then 135 HI * 641 = 86,300 (plus LL). Lets say 30,000 goes on production, whats left needs to produce ammunition (very variable) and fortifications. I think the key ratio here is that ammo + forts cost about 35,000 per turn. So that would leave 21,000 to supply an army, by my ratio roughly 4.2 million.

To this needs to be added LL, and that you can reduce production substantially, certainly by mid-43 you don't need that many arms pts till the 1944 ToEs start. But given that you need all those other things (even forts to protect your advance), I don't think you could supply much over 5 million?




Great stuff thanks for you input, sorry your cat passed.

Hopefully I can provide you with more data and you can become the expert. Your the only one doing it so that makes you the Man.

Thanks again.


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 68
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/24/2015 10:38:55 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 3121
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Great info.

Seeing your the expert in this area I have a question.

How big of an army would 135 hvy and 275 arm be able to support?


make no claims to expertise, just interested in trying to get some simple 'good enough' rules set out.

A few key ratios.

First total army size is a very good proxy for supply demanded within units. The correlation is about 94%, so while there is a lot going on, in truth you can rely on army size: unit supply consumption as the core ratio.

To put this into context, every 200 men want just over 1 unit of supply (its actually 1.01).

Equally very roughly, 34% of all supply goes into production (I have a rough average of 95% of potential production being produced so this could be a little higher or a fair bit lower).

In 1942, 18% of supply goes to arms pts building, in 1942 this drops to 15% - assume that is due to the more stable Soviet ToEs at that stage (also in my game all I've built in 1943 is some specialist artillery, eng brigades and mech corps).

Each pt of HI will support 1.6 pts of arms pts.
Each pt of HI produces on average 512 supply units in 1942 and 641 in 1943.

So if you have 135 HI, any APts over 200 are effectively wasted (this was the problem I got into in my game with SigUp).

If your game is in 1943 then 135 HI * 641 = 86,300 (plus LL). Lets say 30,000 goes on production, whats left needs to produce ammunition (very variable) and fortifications. I think the key ratio here is that ammo + forts cost about 35,000 per turn. So that would leave 21,000 to supply an army, by my ratio roughly 4.2 million.

To this needs to be added LL, and that you can reduce production substantially, certainly by mid-43 you don't need that many arms pts till the 1944 ToEs start. But given that you need all those other things (even forts to protect your advance), I don't think you could supply much over 5 million?




I really don't know what this means. I have 171 HI and 347 Arms.

The 347 arms factories produced 112,125 armaments. Supply required was 20% of number and that was what got delivered to the arms factories: 22,425 tons. So what was wasted?

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 69
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/25/2015 5:53:32 AM   
loki100


Posts: 7496
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Great info.

Seeing your the expert in this area I have a question.

How big of an army would 135 hvy and 275 arm be able to support?


make no claims to expertise, just interested in trying to get some simple 'good enough' rules set out.

A few key ratios.

First total army size is a very good proxy for supply demanded within units. The correlation is about 94%, so while there is a lot going on, in truth you can rely on army size: unit supply consumption as the core ratio.

To put this into context, every 200 men want just over 1 unit of supply (its actually 1.01).

Equally very roughly, 34% of all supply goes into production (I have a rough average of 95% of potential production being produced so this could be a little higher or a fair bit lower).

In 1942, 18% of supply goes to arms pts building, in 1942 this drops to 15% - assume that is due to the more stable Soviet ToEs at that stage (also in my game all I've built in 1943 is some specialist artillery, eng brigades and mech corps).

Each pt of HI will support 1.6 pts of arms pts.
Each pt of HI produces on average 512 supply units in 1942 and 641 in 1943.

So if you have 135 HI, any APts over 200 are effectively wasted (this was the problem I got into in my game with SigUp).

If your game is in 1943 then 135 HI * 641 = 86,300 (plus LL). Lets say 30,000 goes on production, whats left needs to produce ammunition (very variable) and fortifications. I think the key ratio here is that ammo + forts cost about 35,000 per turn. So that would leave 21,000 to supply an army, by my ratio roughly 4.2 million.

To this needs to be added LL, and that you can reduce production substantially, certainly by mid-43 you don't need that many arms pts till the 1944 ToEs start. But given that you need all those other things (even forts to protect your advance), I don't think you could supply much over 5 million?




I really don't know what this means. I have 171 HI and 347 Arms.

The 347 arms factories produced 112,125 armaments. Supply required was 20% of number and that was what got delivered to the arms factories: 22,425 tons. So what was wasted?



I think part of the problem is that any set of ratios are invariably crude as so much will vary according to the situation in a game.

In the game I was analysing, I had an average supply to ammo use of around 20,000 per turn in 1942/3 for 2 reasons. I had an army of 8.5 million and it was against the AI. The reason this is important is if the AI is dominant it will attack more than a human player will (esp with morale etc bonuses) and when it loses the initiative it will be weaker. So in combination that means far more combat than you see PBEM.

Also of course as the Soviet player you can control your ammo use, simply by not attacking.

All that means more supply to divert to feeding units etc. So there are numerous potential trade offs.

If I understand things right, arms pts are another area where the situation is important. First there does seem to be a cap on how much supply the production routine will allocate to arms pts. But equally arms pt production is on the basis of need. Due to the army size I had a long period (dec 41-aug 42) when I was in deficit each turn (ie had no arms pts reserves) and on average it was allocating around 22,000 supply to feed 352 arms pts factories. That sounds close to your position - not least I'm not sure if game settings affect production?

Key bit is that the HI:AP ratio is of more use for planning your industrial evacuation. There is no point ending up with a ratio of 1:2.5 when their will only be enough supply to sustain something in the range 1:1.6 .... 1:2.

_____________________________


(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 70
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/25/2015 1:55:50 PM   
lowtech

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 5/13/2015
Status: offline

Spreadsheets. Dude! I'm like, trying to get away from all that stuff when I play games....

Very nice work. I'm still trying to get my head around all the admin stuff. Still haven't figured out the easiest way to handle all the support units shuffling.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 71
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/25/2015 2:22:16 PM   
loki100


Posts: 7496
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: lowtech


Spreadsheets. Dude! I'm like, trying to get away from all that stuff when I play games....

Very nice work. I'm still trying to get my head around all the admin stuff. Still haven't figured out the easiest way to handle all the support units shuffling.



aye, I know

thats why I'm interesting in trying to get hold of a few basic ratios that you can then work with. Goal is to avoid doing something completely wrong, rather than the search for the perfect mix.

With the Soviets the 1941 Support Unit allocation is now so much easier with 1.08.03. As most of them move from the disbanded corps to Stavka, you can then re-allocate to the armies about T6-8 with some ease. My default model for 1941 is that most armies get 3 art, 2 sappers, 1 AA. I hold the heavier art back in Stavka for the winter offensive. Those defending Moscow and Leningrad get extras but you should be able to operate without raising too many new units till later in 1941.

Also by that stage you've probably got an idea which are the key sectors/commands and you can start to build up those armies (use the Shock Armies as a simple reminder).

_____________________________


(in reply to lowtech)
Post #: 72
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/26/2015 5:31:17 AM   
lowtech

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 5/13/2015
Status: offline
quote:

thats why I'm interesting in trying to get hold of a few basic ratios that you can then work with.


My nominee for Saint-o'-the-Year...

quote:

Goal is to avoid doing something completely wrong, rather than the search for the perfect mix.


To late! I've already screwed everything up... wait. You probably meant in the game and not in real life (tm)

My beef with the support stuff as well as the aircraft, is couldn't we have used the computer thingie to make the players' lives a bit easier? In my game with Chao45 I've screwed up a bit by being too lazy to bother with all of the attachments, artillery is indeed my friend and I've had some spectacular "bounces" as a result of not having any attached. Do we really need all the separate construction units and RAD, which btw almost NEVER functioned as discrete units. And don't get me started on the HQs....
All sniveling aside, I really do appreciate your work.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 73
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/26/2015 8:16:09 AM   
loki100


Posts: 7496
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: lowtech

quote:

thats why I'm interesting in trying to get hold of a few basic ratios that you can then work with.


My nominee for Saint-o'-the-Year...

quote:

Goal is to avoid doing something completely wrong, rather than the search for the perfect mix.


To late! I've already screwed everything up... wait. You probably meant in the game and not in real life (tm)

My beef with the support stuff as well as the aircraft, is couldn't we have used the computer thingie to make the players' lives a bit easier? In my game with Chao45 I've screwed up a bit by being too lazy to bother with all of the attachments, artillery is indeed my friend and I've had some spectacular "bounces" as a result of not having any attached. Do we really need all the separate construction units and RAD, which btw almost NEVER functioned as discrete units. And don't get me started on the HQs....
All sniveling aside, I really do appreciate your work.


I think the problem with SUs is against the AI you can rely on the auto assign function (after all its what your opponent uses), but manual control just gives so much better results that if your opponent pays real attention you will find yourself slowly being mauled. Its a version of Pelton's point in another thread that small % gains (in that case morale from the most senior command levels) over 10s of turns and 100s of combats just add up.

My fixation with the Soviet supply system comes out of wanting to understand the implications of 1.08. Crudely, a Soviet player has to take more losses in 1941 to buy the time for more factory evacuations. I've lost 2.1m in prisoners in this game up the end of November - far more than I ever have before and, pre-1.08, I'd have said that was near fatal in terms of ability to survive.

So it seems as if the trade off: industry preservation/army loss - is important, but to make sense of what you can cope with you need some feel for what size of industry will fuel the post-1943 recovery (and keep you in the game up to that point).

Till we see a decent number of post-1.08 AARs reach mid/late game its all guess work and trying to interpret snippets of information.

_____________________________


(in reply to lowtech)
Post #: 74
Turns 22-23: 13 November – 26 November 1941 - 5/26/2015 8:21:31 AM   
loki100


Posts: 7496
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
Turns 22-23: 13 November – 26 November 1941

Mid November saw Soviet units begin a cautious advance, probing for the new German defensive lines. As destroyed towns and villages were re-occupied, Front reports to Stavka indicated they had fallen back to the lines they had occupied at the start of September.

The period from 13 – 15 November saw the last acts of the agony of Leningrad. The final defending units had held out for 4 weeks after the city was isolated but out of ammunition their defence collapsed.




(Admiralty Clock at the end of the battle)

By mid-November most minor rivers were frozen.



Equally, by 20 November, Soviet units of North West and Kalinin Fronts had re-established contact. A number of localised battles broke out as the Soviets sought to improve their positions in advance of the planned winter offensive.



Over the last six weeks, the Red Army had had chance to recover and build up.



Most front line armies were now at full strength and a large reserve of Siberian units was being held back around Moscow. Orders were sent out to raise a new Front command (misleading called the Volkhov so as to confuse the Germans as to its real location) to increase the striking power on the Moscow-Smolensk sector.


(Formations marked with * are the main attack armies, with mobile units and/or additional artillery and assault engineers. Those marked '-' have few if any combat formations attached).


(Soviet forces moving up to the front)

Slowly, as details of the German defensive lines filtered back to Stavka a plan for an ambitious counter-attack was put in place. Stavka identified a weak spot in the German lines in the Velikie-Luki sector. This might allow attacking Soviet units to break apart AGN and AGS and the liberation of Smolensk would be a powerful statement that the Soviet state had recovered from the shocks of the summer and autumn. The other main area of attack was the far south of the line where the goals were to recapture the Dniepr bend and relieve the siege of Odessa.








[1][3]

Secondary offensives were planned on the Volkhov to try and liberate Leningrad, towards Bryansk and towards Kiev. These were not expected to yield many gains but would help stretch the German defences and leave them unsure as to the real targets.

In the air, the VVS continued its campaign of bombing the Romanian oil fields. Production of specialist tactical bombers had been badly disrupted in the relocation of Soviet industry. As a result a number of new squadrons had been raised using the existing Mig-3 fighters but equipped with the same weaponry as the Sturmoviks.


[2]

[1] – in truth I have no geographical goals, any ground I take I will lose in 1942 and there are no German positions I really need to drive back. So this is primarily to build a cadre of Gds formations and to damage the German army. If Vigabrand keeps his armour and best infantry out of the line I can do more damage (and win more battles), if he commits them to stall me, then at least they will suffer attrition and fatigue.

[2] – this is an experiment, the Mig-3 is the only FB that carries rockets rather than bombs so I have tried to build ShAP units using them and let the LaGG-3s deploy as more conventional FB-F. At least it allows me to deploy far more ground attack aircraft than my limited number of Il-2 and Su-2 squadrons would allow.

At worst, I'll have a cadre of high morale squadrons I can convert to Il-2s when production recovers in mid-1942.

[3] – couldn't resist playing around with Sepia tinted maps


< Message edited by loki100 -- 5/27/2015 11:07:59 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 75
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/26/2015 8:25:20 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11753
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
I see you like and rely on the change where units are attached to STAVKA upon parent HQ disband. It's actually a side effect of other changes (rewrite of disband/destroy functions), and it was reverted (fixed) to use the old way, so those units would end up in nearest (in terms of command chain) HQ (usually one up). Especially I don't like the current rule the most when it happens en masse, during the Soviet corps disband in July 1941. AI doesn't like it too. Will you be very angry at me to see this reverted?

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 76
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/26/2015 8:36:28 AM   
loki100


Posts: 7496
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I see you like and rely on the change where units are attached to STAVKA upon parent HQ disband. It's actually a side effect of other changes (rewrite of disband/destroy functions), and it was reverted (fixed) to use the old way, so those units would end up in nearest (in terms of command chain) HQ (usually one up). Especially I don't like the current rule the most when it happens en masse, during the Soviet corps disband in July 1941. AI doesn't like it too. Will you be very angry at me to see this reverted?


I'm completely in awe at the improvements you are making ...

practically with the Soviets the only 'problem' to the old rule was in SW Front. Too many good SUs got trapped at Front level as those powerful rifle corps disband and you had to spend a fair few Admin Pts to get them to Stavka and back out. Other Fronts it was no real issue as fewer SUs went to the Front level and in any case you could recycle most of them within that Front level (so no admin pt cost).

Getting it all into Stavka just makes the book keeping aspect a bit easier as around T6 I just work across the map refilling each army with what I regard as the baseline SU allocation and then add more to the key sectors and keep others back to fill out the Shock Armies etc when they arrive.

But overall I feel that 1.08 makes managing Soviet admin pts a lot easier (some of this may be simply being more used to planning this aspect), so from that perspective its a useful saving but its not really critical either way

_____________________________


(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 77
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/26/2015 8:50:50 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11753
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Why front level? They should go to armies as corps disband, at least in next version. That way armies retain all the original troops their subordinate corps had, which is the goal (less damage to command structure, especially good for AI).

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 78
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/26/2015 10:35:12 AM   
loki100


Posts: 7496
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Why front level? They should go to armies as corps disband, at least in next version. That way armies retain all the original troops their subordinate corps had, which is the goal (less damage to command structure, especially good for AI).


mainly as SW Front at the start has far more independent corps than the others, so as they disband their SUs default to the Front. You probably don't want to return these to the Armies in the Front as its unlikely the N Ukraine is going to be your priority sector.

Goes back to pretty insane Soviet defensive/offensive plan from early 1941. SW Front as the most powerful formation as the Soviets reckoned any sane attacker would go for the Ukraine (food, raw materials, industry) not Moscow-Leningrad (essentially prestige targets) reflecting their experience of German operations from 1916-19. The Armies were meant to absorb the attack and the Corps were to give the Front commander the flexibility to then concentrate a counter-attack force.

May or may not have made sense in the abstract but it completely ignored their ineffectual command and control capacity and all they knew about the speed and disruption of modern warfare. After all the fundamental logic to Tukhachevsky's Deep Battle doctrine was that if you broke the front to a depth of 40km, you disrupted communications to a depth of 100km, if you got a 75-100km break through then communications effectively fell apart back to 200-250km. Ericksen is very good on the tensions between wanting to build Tukhachevsky's doctrine into the 1941 army re-organisation and retraining but having to do it in a way that didn't appear too obvious to Stalin et al.





_____________________________


(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 79
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/26/2015 8:05:33 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I see you like and rely on the change where units are attached to STAVKA upon parent HQ disband. It's actually a side effect of other changes (rewrite of disband/destroy functions), and it was reverted (fixed) to use the old way, so those units would end up in nearest (in terms of command chain) HQ (usually one up). Especially I don't like the current rule the most when it happens en masse, during the Soviet corps disband in July 1941. AI doesn't like it too. Will you be very angry at me to see this reverted?

I would prefer to see the SUs go into the next step up in the chain of command, when their HQ is disbanded. Coming back into the game from 3 years back, one of the very first things to strike me was 'losing' my SUs to Stavka.

I use Flavio's tactic of aggressively disbanding Corps HQs very early on. With the new rules where the units become Stavka controlled, it makes it much easier to restore C&C to the Soviet Armies. This is a change that the Soviets desperately need in 1941.

So, in short, I'm torn. I would like to see SUs go one step up in the chain, but would like to keep the ground units going to Stavka for the free CP reassigns.

By the way, excellent AAR, loki100!

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 80
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/26/2015 10:26:50 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7503
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
I stopped doing the corps disband thing a while back actually. Nowadays, I'm disbanding airbases more aggressively in lieu of that and just letting the corps expire in July naturally. Imo, this is more efficient in terms of APs. But there are some advantages to disbanding corps instead if AP efficiency isn't your highest priority. Such as asserting control over C&C more quickly.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 5/26/2015 11:34:01 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 81
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/27/2015 12:08:11 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I stopped doing the corps disband thing a while back actually. Nowadays, I'm disbanding airbases more aggressively in lieu of that and just letting the corps expire in July naturally. Imo, this is more efficient in terms of APs. But there are some advantages to disbanding corps instead if AP efficiency isn't your highest priority. Such as asserting control over C&C more quickly.

Well...a side effect of the new rules is that you can assign down to corps from higher HQs in the CoC for free. You can overload them, and then disband them. That way, for 1AP, you can freely reassign numerous units, as well as all of the SUs that may have been assigned. So, imo, it is a win-win for the Soviets in terms of AP efficiency, as well as returning manpower to the pool. The corps HQs that are not in the position to take advantage of this tactic are usually left to disband automatically. However, especially in the SW Front area, there are plenty of opportunities to squeeze out a few extra AP worth of reassigns.

< Message edited by JAMiAM -- 5/27/2015 1:10:19 AM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 82
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/27/2015 12:13:09 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1859
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
yes I selectively disband the corps as well, as IMO it allows the Soviets in key sectors to quickly rebuild CC and to get the SUs to the right places early in the game. Not to mention all those support squads can then be used to bring the army HQs up to 95+% strength early instead of languishing at the corps till they disband....and yes for 1 AP you can also quickly reassign 3-4 divisions to an army command that is then stacked with 6+ support units while all the corps as usually only stuck with 1-2 SU.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 83
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/27/2015 12:14:15 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7503
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Interesting. So maybe disbanding corps has come into its own after all.

I'd have to play around with this and see.

And I can already tell I'm going to have to rethink the factory evacuation. Armament points have been devalued and HI's relative value has gone up. So the optimal evacuation schedule is more complicated now. A good change probably.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 84
RE: Turns 17-22: 9 October – 12 November 1941 - 5/27/2015 5:51:55 AM   
loki100


Posts: 7496
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
rather than reply individually I'll offer a joint response.

I must admit I'm pessimistic about T1-4, by that I mean there is not a lot you can do at the micro level that makes much difference. Most German players hit a natural pause (due to logistics) about T4 and at that stage your army is looking less like the cat decided to invade the old GDW WiTE and has the start of a structure.

Up to then the corps are handy as they allow you to keep isolated units in some sort of command (the new 'real' CV option is interesting to see how important this is).

Anyways, for what its worth, I'm happy to let them expire and then rebuild the OOB over T5-6. As Flaviusx suggests, I'd use the admin pts to clean out your air base OOB. All those SAD bases, naval air commands and a couple of the BAK commands net you a lot of manpower into the pool at an early stage. Add in a few, judicious, 14 pt purchases of FZs and you don't have that much left for corps disbands.

All in all, the new systems save a lot of admin pts, but its still tight over the very early game.

The evac game is much more fun. I've started leaving stuff in the Urals that has high transport values and limited use (like some of those tank divisions that turn up) till October to save rail capacity. Also you clearly need to be prepared to lose more of your army to buy time, but if you lose too much then you may end spending too much of that saved capacity simply replacing what you have lost.

_____________________________


(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 85
Turn 24: 27 November – 3 December 1941 - 5/27/2015 10:10:09 PM   
loki100


Posts: 7496
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
Turn 24: 27 November – 3 December 1941

The start of December saw a strange calm fall over most of the front lines. Here and there Soviet units were still moving up to the German defensive lines. In the south, Soviet and Romanian bombers traded raids on Ploesti and Odessa respectively.



On some sectors limited skirmishes took place as both sides looked for local advantages. Kalinin Front, seeking to test the strength of the German forces between Smolensk and Velikie-Luki launched a few localised attacks.



On the eve of the counterattack, Soviet forces on the critical Velikie Luki-Smolensk-Bryansk sector (effectively most of NW Front and all of Kalinin, Volkhov and Western Fronts) came to 1,730,000 men, 2,600 tanks and 15,500 guns. Equally the bulk of the VVS' most modern planes were moved to forward airbases and 1,850 planes were available to support combat operations (60% bombers, 40% fighters).


(Yak-1 deployed near Rzhev)

Elsewhere Soviet forces were spread out more thinly as most spare reinforcements went to the southern Ukraine.



Even as the limited fighting on the Kalinin Front sector started to escalate, the rest of the long front remained quiet.


(Soviet sappers clearing routes in minefields in preparation for the main attacks)

Finally, in the early dawn light of the 4 December, the opening salvos were fired. Artillery assigned to NW Front's 11 Army opened up on the defensive positions of V Corps west of Velikie Luki. Within 30 minutes Soviet attacks went in across the front from Lake Ladoga to the mouth of the Dneipr.

_____________________________


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 86
RE: Turn 24: 27 November – 3 December 1941 - 5/27/2015 11:32:48 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1859
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Well me and Peltons game is up to turn 9 so if I can survive until winter will start to give a better look of the Soviets in the long haul.

My other game is now on turn 8

I will say against the Lvov opening its very, very hard for the soviets to get their industry out at 6k per armaments/vehicle and 10k per heavy industry. At around 130-140k rail available if your not moving much if any units per turn and only starting on turn 3.

As the Lvov opening wipes out the Soviets ability to effectively resist in the south against a strong German player. All its takes is for 1 or 2 of the big cities in the south to fall before you get the industry out and you are already knocked under 1942 start levels for Soviet industry. Im playing 2 games right now 1 vs pelton and 1 vs lowtech where we are playing more historical....the Soviets are still losing alot of men and the Germans are still advancing well just it slowed them down a couple turns is all really. I also played historical and went with a more aggressive forward defense in the south so have no lost most of the troops that were saved but it did buy time.

As to AP use well I spend them about as fast as they come in really for alot of reasons and havent even started replacing most of my leaders to more competent types. The Soviets need support units IMO to stand a chance in the early game lots of sappers and heavy artillery. Since a given battle can get up to 6+ support units if ur general rolls well I always assigned 6 artillery and at least 2+ regiments of sappers to every army I think will be in heavy combat. If I want to dig alot esp important in the early game as a fort lvl or two might stop the first attack I assign 4+ regiments of sappers to that army. Seems to be working as intended as my armies with lots of Sappers are digging in fairly quickly.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 87
RE: Turn 24: 27 November – 3 December 1941 - 5/31/2015 7:21:14 PM   
loki100


Posts: 7496
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

Well me and Peltons game is up to turn 9 so if I can survive until winter will start to give a better look of the Soviets in the long haul.

My other game is now on turn 8

I will say against the Lvov opening its very, very hard for the soviets to get their industry out at 6k per armaments/vehicle and 10k per heavy industry. At around 130-140k rail available if your not moving much if any units per turn and only starting on turn 3.

As the Lvov opening wipes out the Soviets ability to effectively resist in the south against a strong German player. All its takes is for 1 or 2 of the big cities in the south to fall before you get the industry out and you are already knocked under 1942 start levels for Soviet industry. Im playing 2 games right now 1 vs pelton and 1 vs lowtech where we are playing more historical....the Soviets are still losing alot of men and the Germans are still advancing well just it slowed them down a couple turns is all really. I also played historical and went with a more aggressive forward defense in the south so have no lost most of the troops that were saved but it did buy time.

As to AP use well I spend them about as fast as they come in really for alot of reasons and havent even started replacing most of my leaders to more competent types. The Soviets need support units IMO to stand a chance in the early game lots of sappers and heavy artillery. Since a given battle can get up to 6+ support units if ur general rolls well I always assigned 6 artillery and at least 2+ regiments of sappers to every army I think will be in heavy combat. If I want to dig alot esp important in the early game as a fort lvl or two might stop the first attack I assign 4+ regiments of sappers to that army. Seems to be working as intended as my armies with lots of Sappers are digging in fairly quickly.


I'd agree with the relative importance of Lvov, it seems to produce two totally different games in consequence and you can't really compare those where the German player agrees to some (realistic) restraint (in return for some other agreements) and those who exploit the unrealistic capacity that exists in the south for the Germans.

I end up with the OOB you use but not in 1941 apart from for a few key armies. I'd rather stock up on arms pts to deal with the hit of the returning units and then to build a 'reserve' army of low TOE rifle brigades as the basis for the 1942 army (most of these will be lost in pockets but I think the only solution to 1942 is sheer weight of numbers). The other advantage to a more pared down approach to SUs in 1941 is you are that bit more likely to convert them to Gds as the same units will be committed far more often.

_____________________________


(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 88
RE: Turn 24: 27 November – 3 December 1941 - 5/31/2015 7:25:19 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1859
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Yes but your still limited to 5% guards in 1941 correct? or has that been changed in a patch.

So the bigger your army is the more guards units you are allowed. 100 divisions = 5 guards, 200 = 10 and so forth.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 89
Turn 25: 4-10 December 1941 - 5/31/2015 7:25:40 PM   
loki100


Posts: 7496
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
Turn 25: 4-10 December 1941

Ever since the Germans halted their offensive Stavka had been planning a counter attack. One major problem was that the substantial losses of tanks in the summer (and the ineffectiveness of the pre-war Tank Divisions) had left the Red Army short of mobile forces.

Order of Battle

To address this, 4 Armies (4, 37, 38 and 40) were re-organised to include the bulk of the cavalry forces and the few fully equipped armoured formations [1]. Typically these included 4 of the freshly created cavalry corps, with their own specialist tank battalion, additional combat engineers and a mixture of AA, AT and more engineering assets. The few remaining Tank Divisions and the small number of fully equipped tank brigades were also assigned to these formations.



In addition, a number of infantry armies were identified as the main offensive force and allocated the best commanders. Mostly concentrated in Kalinin, Volkhov and North Western Fronts these were also assigned the best rifle divisions (including the elite formations drawn from Siberia), heavy artillery and the new katyusha rocket launchers. The precise OOB varied according to what units had been available but the intention was to concentrate the offensive power of the Red Army in a few formations.

Velikie Luki-Smolensk battles

Fighting on this sector had been going on for the last two weeks as the Soviets probed the German defensive lines. However, 4 December brought a huge escalation. The opening blow was by 11 Army north west of Velikie Luki where elements of Konrad's badly spread out V Corps were swept from their defensive positions. However, to the south, the Germans managed to hold off an attack by 22 Army preventing the Soviets from enveloping the city.



However, NW Front's offensive was the secondary effort. By the 5th, Kalinin Front was in position and 31 Army overwhelmed V Corps' southern flank near Demidov and 20 Army shattered the defensive positions of 23 Corps, allowing other Soviet units to move into the gap between the German strongpoints.




(Soviet infantry attack in the Smolensk sector)

In the meantime Western Front struck the German lines north of Bryansk. The opening attack by 10 Army was held but supporting blows by 13 Army overran an exposed salient and started the process of unravelling the strong German defensive positions on this sector.







Sumy-Poltava battles

The opening blows in the Ukraine were around Sumy. Elements of SW Front quickly forced Hungarian units from their defensive positions on the Psel.



To the south, advanced units of 9 Army failed to break the German lines, but 19 Army forced them back around Poltava.





The rest of the Ukraine was quiet as Soviet units were still moving into contact with the German defensive lines. The exception was in the far south where elements of Coastal Army overran some exposed Romanian positions.

Despite the successes, Stavka was worried at the lack of German armoured formations. Reconnaissance flights and partisan reports indicated the bulk had been withdrawn but it was not clear if the Soviets were being drawn forward into a trap.


(German armour being withdrawn to the rear)[2]

Losses reflected this lack of both armour and air protection. In a weeks fighting the Germans lost 15,000 men (almost 3,000 killed), 2 tanks and 4 planes and the Soviets lost 31,000 men (over 10,000 killed), 150 tanks and 60 planes.

[1] – I'm leaving most of the tank brigades at 50% TOE to save manpower and arms pts and to ensure that my few replacement tanks are assigned to key formations. I think, at this stage, that independent tank battalions are a better use of tanks than the tank brigades.
[2] – think the tank is a captured French S-35?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were overwhelmed with work. Messages to and from every Front arrived all day long. Morale was high, the opening news from west of Moscow seemed to indicate that our troops would overwhelm the Germans. Of course, I kept an eye on any messages from Leningrad Front.

It had lost the elite units that had fought on that sector in September but many of the rifle divisions had been raised in Leningrad, Novgorod or Pskov. What they lacked in training they made up with in enthusiasm. Unfortunately the opening blow by 33 and 55 Armies saw heavy losses as Finnish machine gunners cut down our men as they tried to cross the frozen Volkhov.



At the time it was not clear why we were sacrificing so many men attacking such well defended positions.

_____________________________


(in reply to loki100)
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 >> Turn 16: 2-8 October 1941 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

0.232