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: End.

 
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: End. Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 11 [12]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: End. - 7/22/2020 12:45:20 PM   
BrianG

 

Posts: 4151
Joined: 3/6/2012
Status: offline
DAS ENDS:

I'll start with this

I had no idea game ended automatically if Germans get 290 vc points. I thought we were playing game which ended in 1945, and did not have any sudden end rules. (has this rule been in this game all along or added in a beta)

Thus i was playing really long term and tyronec was playing based on this 290 end game. And that must have been his reason for taking the cities in late 42 and leaving his panzers in a ball near Gorky. And just when i had thought the tide was starting to turn.


Is there a game option for no automatic end?



More to follow:

< Message edited by BrianG -- 7/22/2020 12:55:23 PM >

(in reply to Kilo59)
Post #: 331
oh and congrats - 7/22/2020 12:48:00 PM   
BrianG

 

Posts: 4151
Joined: 3/6/2012
Status: offline
Congrats to Tyronec for a well deserved victory.

(in reply to BrianG)
Post #: 332
alt vc 260 - 7/22/2020 1:02:30 PM   
BrianG

 

Posts: 4151
Joined: 3/6/2012
Status: offline
I am pretty sure i did not set game up as alt vc 260 and used the first option 1941 -1945 campaign.

So that's why i ask if the 260 auto win was put into the basic campaign in a beta.


(in reply to BrianG)
Post #: 333
RE: End. - 7/22/2020 1:17:34 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 4606
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrianG

DAS ENDS:

I'll start with this

I had no idea game ended automatically if Germans get 290 vc points. I thought we were playing game which ended in 1945, and did not have any sudden end rules. (has this rule been in this game all along or added in a beta)

Thus i was playing really long term and tyronec was playing based on this 290 end game. And that must have been his reason for taking the cities in late 42 and leaving his panzers in a ball near Gorky. And just when i had thought the tide was starting to turn.


Is there a game option for no automatic end?


It has always had the sudden death victory condition. If you do not want that you need to choose the Bitter End scenario.

_____________________________

Wargamers Discord https://discord.gg/U6DcDxT

(in reply to BrianG)
Post #: 334
RE: End. - 7/22/2020 2:22:04 PM   
SparkleyTits

 

Posts: 857
Joined: 10/7/2016
From: England
Status: offline
Congrats Tyronec

Good job to both of you

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 335
RE: End. - 7/22/2020 3:31:20 PM   
redrum68

 

Posts: 419
Joined: 11/26/2017
Status: online
Great game and AAR!

(in reply to SparkleyTits)
Post #: 336
RE: End. - 7/22/2020 7:08:52 PM   
BrianG

 

Posts: 4151
Joined: 3/6/2012
Status: offline
quote:

If you do not want that you need to choose the Bitter End scenario.


That is me.

a bitter ender.

I hopefully will remember next time i put out for a game.

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 337
RE: End. - 7/22/2020 7:10:18 PM   
BrianG

 

Posts: 4151
Joined: 3/6/2012
Status: offline
so what is the difference between regular 41 -45 campaign and the alt260 campaign choice?

Bitter end being a third choice.

answer 260 290 or bitter!!



< Message edited by BrianG -- 7/22/2020 9:53:17 PM >

(in reply to BrianG)
Post #: 338
RE: End. - 7/22/2020 10:19:28 PM   
BrianG

 

Posts: 4151
Joined: 3/6/2012
Status: offline
I just read this AAR, very nice and well done with lots of help given!

I don't think one realizes the pressure i was constantly facing.
His push with mech units over the Don during mud, was most unwelcome.

And as i've vented elsewhere, I laid down 2 forts in the Baku pass in summer 1941 and the 2 guards corp where just trying to get one fort to level 4 when The Germans broke thru and took the city hex on the coast. (basically unguarded). That compounded with my issue concerning train troop transport capacity which due to a change in reserve back to 0%, my train troop capacity dropped from 30K to 5K and that fully stopped any orderly retreat from Georgia area towards Baku.

Also I was using Guriev port as a reinforcement area (turns 60 thru the end) and they got cut off. I then realized Guriev port is not a supply source. If i had know that, these troops would not have been near Guriev and would have been used in the defense of Chalkov. thus, my lack of knowing the rules resulted in bad Russian strategy and bad tactical decisions.

And since i thought we were bitter end I was not paying attention to vc 290. I might have tried to hold a few other cities, Yaraslov and Chakov, if i had known of the vc situation.

Other issues: my tank corp had very low mp's and i had no ability to flood behind German lines doing havoc. (we know how much i like that).

Otherwise, I thought my troops where finally starting to recover, I have many guard corp, a few tank guard corp, a few waiting for promotion and my Il2 airforce was very well organized.

Tyronec most likely would have played the late Panzer ball differently if it was bitter end. More tanks spread out and less ability for me to do damage (as of the last 4 turns) on the far east of the map.

I am not returning those captured Rumanian mountain troops!

I will post my pictures of this war in a separate room.




(in reply to BrianG)
Post #: 339
RE: End. - 7/23/2020 7:09:33 AM   
tyronec


Posts: 4087
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline
Clearly I made a mistake allowing the rail line East of Saratov to be cut, and there are quite a few units at risk with that lasting several turns. Would I have made that mistake if we had been playing Bitter End, I don't know. Certainly in this game had not been expecting the Soviets to have such strong forces in the area with the 290 VPs under threat.

Had I not been playing to the 290 VPs then would have had a different strategy for the past few turns, focused on pocketing units which I did none of rather than just taking objectives. It is pointless to speculate on what the outcome would have been, however I think the main pressure point would have been on Soviet manpower. On the last 25 turns Soviet OOB went down from 5M to 4.3M while German OOB was fairly static at around 3.6M, when you add in 1.5M Allies that gives Axis the larger army (though the Soviets could avoid the Allies by keeping out of their zones). In that period Soviet replacements have gone done from 82k a turn to 66k a turn due to lost population centers (have been tracking this) and they are about to take a 25% hit in '43. Axis manpower pool is huge but the only part that matters is the German one which was around 40k and increasing 5k a turn during the winter.

I hadn't even realised there were Soviet troops around Guriev.

And yes, my support team were very helpful - you should do an AAR next time Brian and see if you can harvest any useful tips !!!

(in reply to BrianG)
Post #: 340
RE: End. - 7/23/2020 9:52:30 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1845
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: online
Tyronec points out the key fact as the game goes on Soviet manpower keeps declining, especially if they keep losing ground and dont retake anything. Even when you factor in retaking soviet cities by the time you retake them, they are damaged for awhile and usually by then your multiplier is lower due to year changes.

Its why Leningrad and the south being auto takes by the axis is 1941 along with Moscow being seemingly easy to take for skilled German players in 1941 creates such a negative long term snowball for the soviets its night impossible to recover from. As not only do you lose the manpower centers that the soviets historically held, but you lose them right when the manpower multipliers is at its highest. So these are massive both short term and long term manpower hits for the soviets.

The short term hit then makes the soviet army immediately weaker in late 1941 and 1942 when the German army is still on the offensive wherever they want....and the long term is it then takes the soviets longer and longer to build a large enough army to stop/slow the german advance. Compounding issues that are nigh impossible to recover from the way the game is built.

One thing that probably needs to be added for a more successful representation of history is triggered replacement units/floods of manpower based on German progress not historical timelines. The militia units/divisions mobilized by the major soviet cities were all done when Germans got close yet the game doesnt mobilize those units until historical dates...this gives the Germans a massive incentive to push harder than historical if possible to make these units not really matter like they did historically. As by the time they arrive on the historical timeline the damage is already done. As well the soviets should probably get a massive at least one time bonus of manpower when a city is either closed in on by German forces or taken one of the two to represent to the last push to arm everyone able to carry a rifle with one like they often did historically--would help offset the longer manpower lose and be actually historical.

(in reply to tyronec)
Post #: 341
More recap - 7/23/2020 12:16:21 PM   
BrianG

 

Posts: 4151
Joined: 3/6/2012
Status: offline
I had much fun playing this out.

I would add Russian supply source points at Guriev , and allow Astrakhan to operate as a functioning port once the rr get cut off on either side. Tyronec had no incentive to: keep any garrison force in the Caucuses. My guys just withered and surrendered without any enemy contact.

Also, once Astrakhan is nullified as an area, the Germans have no fear of flank attacks southeast of Stalingrad and can mass troops elsewhere.

But, in any case, Tyronec would have crushed me late if he tried to surround more units south of Gorky. I was planning a major retreat east with these units to bide more time but since he was doing the bludgeon approach, i had no need.

Tyronec is a very skilled played and, although I read of 'his mistakes', I saw very few from my view. I saw a player who was prepared and the exploit down near Baku was masterful. I wont comment on my Baku road block. Hint: is was made of sand.

My tank corp fuel problem was also a major problem. Some turns my avg MP's for them was 20. No way to break into the enemy's behind and do a real disruption. My 56th Army had a good tank general. Its mp's became good late when it was resting near a major urban center. The use of cities for supply has really changed things.

Also i lost a few urban centers to direct attack when my defensive cv was over 50. I found that a change and thought attacking cities was supposed to be harder under the new beta.

Partisans are just useless! and they never merged to create larger units. Partisans should merge and move closer to the front lines and working rr's. and then they should cut the rr's

Russian troop transport should have a minimum of 20K no matter what. It was unclear to me in late 42 why the Russians have reserved rr for factory removal. By then it should be optional.


< Message edited by BrianG -- 7/23/2020 12:29:36 PM >

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 342
RE: More recap - 7/23/2020 5:31:51 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 2970
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: BrianG
My tank corp fuel problem was also a major problem. Some turns my avg MP's for them was 20. No way to break into the enemy's behind and do a real disruption. My 56th Army had a good tank general. Its mp's became good late when it was resting near a major urban center. The use of cities for supply has really changed things.


Did you attempt to provide them additional fuel by air?

(in reply to BrianG)
Post #: 343
RE: More recap - 7/23/2020 8:31:47 PM   
BrianG

 

Posts: 4151
Joined: 3/6/2012
Status: offline
quote:

Did you attempt to provide them additional fuel by air?


I would say no, although i did start that in the last few turns.

It was very odd how the 56th army which was near kazan, regained its good mp's after a few turns.

I think t being near major city was the big difference in fuel supply. Which leads me to question the supply system as it relates to getting from cities.

Someone who likes tests should do a test of away from city v being near major city for fuel.

Also, the toe of all Army's was raised in July so they went from 98% toe to 80% and were building back up by the time the game ended. maybe that had an effect too.

add in lousy rr supply. I had plenty of trucks as can be seen in my last end game photo's.

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 344
turn 63 tank mp's - 7/23/2020 9:01:46 PM   
BrianG

 

Posts: 4151
Joined: 3/6/2012
Status: offline
turn 63 tank corp mp's.

before moves






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by BrianG -- 7/23/2020 9:05:09 PM >

(in reply to BrianG)
Post #: 345
RE: turn 63 tank mp's - 7/23/2020 9:54:51 PM   
cap_and_gown


Posts: 2816
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: online
What I question most of all is German logistics. It seems overly generous if a German player can generally take both Leningrad and Moscow in 41. Moscow in particular stretched the Wehrmacht's logistical system beyond the breaking point. Why weren't the men equipped for winter in 41? Not because everyone thought it would be a short war (though of course they did) but because the Germans had to make choices between sending supplies and sending winter equipment. If the German's had not launched Typhoon, they would have been much better equipped to handle the coming winter.

(in reply to BrianG)
Post #: 346
RE: turn 63 tank mp's - 7/24/2020 2:03:26 AM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 2970
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrianG

turn 63 tank corp mp's.

before moves







Never mind the MPs, this is an example of how not to manage tank corps. You have but one guards corps in August 1942. Remember that each guards corps gives you 10+ morale. You ought to be able to create half a dozen by June 1942 at a minimum. Anything less, and you are doing something wrong, particularly during the blizzard period. I would have had 10-14 by now.

(in reply to BrianG)
Post #: 347
RE: turn 63 tank mp's - 7/24/2020 2:27:22 AM   
BrianG

 

Posts: 4151
Joined: 3/6/2012
Status: offline
quote:

Never mind the MPs


a wee harsh.

The point is low mp's meant i could not threaten him with any maneuver. Could not do any hit and run.

Also, I rather sacrifice a low morale, high mp unit than a Guards tank Corp.

that said, I had 3 by the end of Nov 42, and 3 waiting for upgrade. Its been a rough war.

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 348
RE: turn 63 tank mp's - 7/24/2020 2:51:57 AM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 2970
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: online
Sorry, but you won't beat someone like Tyrone with middling gameplay in this one example. Chaos is absolutely right, once you lose Moscow, the margin for error is razor thin. You just don't have the manpower to turn things around when you've been thrown this far back. I don't know that you were on the verge of turning anything around, given the manpower cuts that were going to kick in come January. WiTE has been decidedly tilted in one direction for about three years now, maybe more. All the patching done since then has yet to demonstrate otherwise.

And I never throw away high MP units, period. You're just consuming your seed corn when you do that.

This isn't about tenacity, you have tons of that and hats off to you. Best of luck on your next one.

(in reply to BrianG)
Post #: 349
RE: turn 63 tank mp's - 7/24/2020 8:17:24 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1845
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: online
Another note on your tank corps management.....they should always be in tank or shock armies, only put them in normal armies after you have filled up shock/tank armies. The admin bonus is huge in making sure you get MPs.

As well the tank armies end up supporting far fewer units than a normal army so more support for the tanks overall.

My typically build would be Cav corps mainly in shock armies to make sure they get good MP, then build tank armies as soon as available and put the tank corps in the tank armies at 3x tank corps per army with some supporting assets...artillery BDE/Div can work well for this without overloading the tank army HQ.

Another tactics I learned was to put your offensive/reserve shock armies and tank armies under one front if at all possible. Then you can put a good leader in the front HQ which should allow all you key armies to make sure they dont fail rolls, as even if the Army leaders fail you then have a good back roll from the front commander.

Since you have so few really good commanders this seems to work the best for making sure those armies stay up. Also Since in 1942 the Germans usually go to panzer ball strategy you will need most of these assets wherever the panzerball is.....then once you can transition to the offensive you already have a very well lead veteran front to assault with.

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 350
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 10 11 [12]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: End. Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 11 [12]
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

0.145