Games 1943 +

[Cavalry Corp]

Sir

Quite happy to send the game file.... next turn if you like.

I will also look on Discord.

Cav

[M60A3TTS]

Unfortunately the game is being played using the Steel Inferno expansion pack, so I can't view the file.

I have no idea if there are issues with Steel Inferno, but I'm afraid I can't help at this stage.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Unfortunately the game is being played using the Steel Inferno expansion pack, so I can't view the file.

I have no idea if there are issues with Steel Inferno, but I'm afraid I can't help at this stage.

I will gift you Steel Inferno if you like.

[Cavalry Corp]

M60 thanks for your offer of help.

Update

For sure, attaching to OKH on Berlin does nothing; NR does random things, but usually not much. TB does much more for reasons that are not clear, but it wastes a lot of time and can be random. And these still do not upgrade to newer, better equipment.

We are now in December 44, for instance. I have 24 king tigers in play, both in Co.-sized units (which did upgrade pretty easily, TBH so that issue alone is suspect ), and nearly 400 in the pool.

I really hope they review this as we really do need an overhaul - not so much for 41-42. Its 43+ where things go a bit mad.

Cav

[M60A3TTS]

Unfortunately the game is being played using the Steel Inferno expansion pack, so I can't view the file.

I have no idea if there are issues with Steel Inferno, but I'm afraid I can't help at this stage.

I will gift you Steel Inferno if you like.

If it costs you anything, then no thanks. With a discount coupon I could get it for $11 and change, but if all I'm using it for is analyzing this game, I don't see the point.

[Cavalry Corp]

Some more screen

io know a patch is helping but my leader losses are also vast - all from retreats and displacements I would say

This is the 43+, campaign I did no attaching in 43 BTW.

I noticed a unit has more chance to get better equipment as it comes on, FYI. Like GD TK Bat just arrived comes on with King Tigers?

northScreenshot 2024-09-10 172622.jpg (1.09 MiB) Viewed 756 times

leadersScreenshot 2024-09-10 174037.jpg (489.59 KiB) Viewed 756 times

hunScreenshot 2024-09-10 172447.jpg (1.69 MiB) Viewed 756 times

cwneScreenshot 2024-09-10 172542.jpg (1.34 MiB) Viewed 756 times

[Cavalry Corp]

more

mppScreenshot 2024-09-10 173225.jpg (358.99 KiB) Viewed 755 times

menScreenshot 2024-09-10 173112.jpg (269.4 KiB) Viewed 755 times

loss 1Screenshot 2024-09-10 172414.jpg (185.02 KiB) Viewed 755 times

[Sammy5IsAlive]

What I would take from those screenshots is this (assuming they are all from the same turn).

The Vistula to Berlin campaign starts a month later than you are at. The Soviets are slightly ahead of historical in the North and Centre and slightly behind in the South. Did you manage to get everybody out of Lithuania/Courland or do you still have the equivalent of the historical pocket? In terms of OOBs your total on map men is about the same as at the start of the VtB scenario and the Soviets are about 800k below what they are at the scenario start.

So by those two measures at least it seems to be a broadly 'historical' outcome.

In terms of your difficulties getting replacements - we can see that you still have manpower in the pools so that is not your problem. I'd be interested to see the equivalent screen for armament points; the production screen (in particular showing the number of rifle squads in the pools) and the freight section of the logistics phase report (to try to see what is going on with your supply network). It might also be interesting to see how many rifle squad elements you have in your OOB (you can find this out by clicking on the far right number in the Rifle Squad line in the production screen - this should take you to the commanders report showing the number of elements in units). By comparing that to the VtB scenario we could get an idea of whether AlbertN might be onto something re unit TOEs becoming skewed towards support elements rather than combat elements.

[Cavalry Corp]

Sammy

Ok, I will do that

But what of my losses? They seem far more than historical.

AGN ( cut off around Estonia ) was destroyed in short order about two turns ago - but most of the HQ were routed out.

The other issue I have now is no very good leaders.


Cav

[Cavalry Corp]

Hope some of these screens help

rifleScreenshot 2024-09-16 203341.jpg (309.28 KiB) Viewed 597 times

oilScreenshot 2024-09-16 203538.jpg (331.33 KiB) Viewed 597 times

game 1Screenshot 2024-09-16 181749.jpg (248.92 KiB) Viewed 597 times

freightScreenshot 2024-09-16 202855.jpg (174.07 KiB) Viewed 597 times

[Cavalry Corp]

and more - GD refits this turn to be given PZ111 when we have over 1000 much better tanks -that silly.

rifleScreenshot 2024-09-16 203341.jpg (309.28 KiB) Viewed 596 times

gdScreenshot 2024-09-16 184824.jpg (174.81 KiB) Viewed 596 times

[Sammy5IsAlive]

So looking at those screenshots I would say that one issue may be that your replacements are heavily skewed towards replacing AFVs (and perhaps other heavy weapons) in your Panzer Armies and this is preventing your infantry divisions from picking up replacements in terms of rifle squads.

The clearest contrast is between your 1st Panzer Army, which received 7150 worth of freight in replacements but only converted this into 977 men and your 18th Army, which whilst only receiving 432 freight converted this into 3064 men.

This would give a rough and ready suggestion that if you were able to set up your supply priorities and TOEs to redirect perhaps half of the replacement freight that went to 1PA to go to 18A instead you could push c. 25,000 extra men into 18A at the expense of c.500 men not being received by 1PA. Obviously the other trade off is that your Panzer Divisions will be running at lower TOE but this is a necessary trade off if you are going to keep your infantry divisions viable.

In late 44/45 your Panzer Divs obviously have a role to play, but they will be useless if you let the infantry get so worn down that they can be pushed aside with enough ease that your strong units can just be bypassed.

[chaos45]

You can always change the priority of replacements and supplies using refit and supply priority settings.

[Cavalry Corp]

OK thanks fro these observations...so the view is to reduce the TOE of Panzer Divs - to say 80%?

I already use the supply priorities, etc, to try and achieve this, but it seems a more complex problem.

cav.

[chaos45]

units on refit and supply priority 4 should get first dibs on replacements and supply.

So if you dont want the panzer divisions eating up all the supply and replacement tonnage drop them off of refit and to like priority 3 while the infantry stay on refit and priority 4.

Should fix how your replacements are being allocated.

[Cavalry Corp]

Noted I am trying it out...

[Cavalry Corp]

We are now at the end of Dec 44 - can someone advise me why I seem to have no fuel - is it just because of allied bombing? What to do about it or can I do anything about it.

No matter what I have tried, I can't get any Tiger 2 into any more units other than the co. sized ones who arrive and then seem to auto upgrade - I tried everything I could, but nothing works. I do not make a habit of complaining, but for people to continue with the long games, which involve a lot of time investment, it has to be fixed. However, I will be doing an MOD soon. Once I work it all out in the editor. It's the 41-45 games that interest me.

Also, my units and HQs seem to be changing attachments randomly - very annoying and has been going off for 6 turns or so now - especially on Attack HQ. Its very annoying as they get overloaded, and then the whole purpose is lost.

Cav

MAPScreenshot 2024-09-21 112047.jpg (1.52 MiB) Viewed 428 times

FUELScreenshot 2024-09-21 110635.jpg (335.44 KiB) Viewed 428 times

FUEL 3Screenshot 2024-09-21 111615.jpg (595.01 KiB) Viewed 428 times

FUEL 2Screenshot 2024-09-21 110718.jpg (1.77 MiB) Viewed 428 times

[DocHawkeye]

The structural shock between games pre-1943 and post-1943 to me just underlines the narrative necessity of the Battle of Stalingrad if you want historic direction of the front, abstract or not. Stalingrad was a battle that by pure military rationality alone-never would have happened. I still look at the city’s 30+ score value with amusement. The Germans didn’t even consider it important in the operational plan for Case Blue-the offensive that led directly to it. It did become materially important later on, but even that reason was secondary to the real reason the battle became such a ridiculous showdown. The simple egotism of Hitler and Stalin. The game really needs some kind of “floating” objective scoring system better than territorial captures, because trying to lead players into historic narrative via fixed capture values clearly doesn’t work. Nazi and Soviet leaders weren’t measuring victory in the war by pure military rationality, historians will never settle where material rationality factored into Hitler and Stalin’s thinking.

I’ve never been able to play a complete game through 1943. You either start at 1943, or you start at 1941 and end somewhere in 1942. You just can’t organically create the utterly illogical and biblical confrontation that took place in Stalingrad in the winter of 1942 via the game’s combat mechanics. So there’s a big ol 30VP value on it for….some reason? If it’s that we know the history of the war then the hindsight seems unearned no? There has to be a reason for a “Stalingrad” to happen outside of “because that’s what actually happened”, more reason for such an illogical little spit of a town on the Volga to turn into the climactic showdown of the war than a “30 victory points”. If one’s solution to that is “31 victory points” it still won’t work.

[Cavalry Corp]

Thanks for this but this scn starts July 43, and I did not do a Kursk either - we should have been in much better shape - game had to be concluded as I had 0 Fuel all panzers with 1 mp.

Though TBH I did not know how much the econ can be managed. We are trying a new game.

Cav