Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

[Smirfy]

Great AAR though one observation before Moscow from last turn you just covered 100 miles and lost no tanks apart from 2 breakdowns[&:] Surely that needs tweaking? I assume you also met resistance during this thrust as well as mechanical attrition? The Soviets must also be short of armour if they only lost 20 tanks countering a thrust on Moscow[X(]

[Joel Billings]

Destroyed tanks went from 788 to 884, so the Germans lost 96 tanks destroyed during the entire turn. No doubt many more were damaged.

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Destroyed tanks went from 788 to 884, so the Germans lost 96 tanks destroyed during the entire turn. No doubt many more were damaged.

Good to hear and also glad to hear the Russians lost 178 tanks but why does it not show that in the current turn losses?

[Joel Billings]

Losses are just for the last player-turn. I'm guessing Lee is showing the loss screen at the start of the German turn, which means all you see are losses from the Soviet turn plus losses in your logistics phase. As soon as you exit this initial screen, the totals are zeroed out and accumulate until after the logistics phase of the next player's turn, at which point once viewed at the start of their turn the losses zero out again.

[elmo3]

Yes these loss screens are generated at the start of the German turn.

[Balou]

elmo,

I'll have to look at the big picture in the area and decide where to head next given that the weather will be closing in soon

As long as there are no victory points assigned to certain sov targets the question is rather academic. I assume that the main purpose of your AAR is to see whether WitE is playable at this point and to figure out major bugs. So please, once you've made your decision where AGS will be heading, let us know what your "strategic considerations" - if there are any - have been.

[SGHunt]

Eimo

A couple of Q's:

1. In both the recent AGC and AGS screenshots there are German divisions/brigades that are white - presumably these are reinforcements that have joined the AG after the start of Barabarossa? They have not been allocated to a Headquarters (yet?) and I was interested to know why? How do they get supply if they have no HQ? How do they (indeed, can they) gain the benefit of additional Corps/Army/Group assets in combat? Are they subordinate to any HQ?

2. In the AGC centre screenshot, there is an air group that is green, like 3rd Pz Grp - is it attached to that Group and, if so, how does that work?

3. The pointy 'spade' symbol on white background (lower left in the AGC SS) is the Boxcar you referred to? There are lots of such companies, but also a Corps, in the AGS screenie. I can't find that symbol in the Nato wiki - just trying to make sense of things.

Many thanks
Stuart

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Balou]

As long as there are no victory points assigned to certain sov targets the question is rather academic. I assume that the main purpose of your AAR is to see whether WitE is playable at this point and to figure out major bugs. So please, once you've made your decision where AGS will be heading, let us know what your "strategic considerations" - if there are any - have been.

The main purpose is really to show you guys how the game plays. I could have tested AI capability and looked for bugs and such without doing it in the public forum. I'm trying to play somewhat historically and "pretending" if you will that there are objectives to guide my play. Moscow and Leningrad are obvious goals. Down south it is a little less clear after Kiev falls. I'll have to check my Glantz books for some inspiration for AGS.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: von Jaeger

Eimo

A couple of Q's:

1. In both the recent AGC and AGS screenshots there are German divisions/brigades that are white - presumably these are reinforcements that have joined the AG after the start of Barabarossa? They have not been allocated to a Headquarters (yet?) and I was interested to know why? How do they get supply if they have no HQ? How do they (indeed, can they) gain the benefit of additional Corps/Army/Group assets in combat? Are they subordinate to any HQ?

2. In the AGC centre screenshot, there is an air group that is green, like 3rd Pz Grp - is it attached to that Group and, if so, how does that work?

3. The pointy 'spade' symbol on white background (lower left in the AGC SS) is the Boxcar you referred to? There are lots of such companies, but also a Corps, in the AGS screenie. I can't find that symbol in the Nato wiki - just trying to make sense of things.

Many thanks
Stuart

1. The German units with white report directly to OKH and most are reinforcements that arrive after the start. I almost always reassign them to a corps so as not to have to keep the OKH HQ right at the front for supply purposes.

2. Airbases that are colored are attached directly to the Army or Army Group with the same color. They can't change their attachment. Soviet airbases only attach to an air HQ, which in turn attaches to a Front. Air missions will normally only contain air units from airbases attached to the same HQ.

3. That is a rail repair unit. The boxcar is shown in my turn 13 AGC screen shot on page 14 of this thread.

[ComradeP]

Down south it is a little less clear after Kiev falls. I'll have to check my Glantz books for some inspiration for AGS.

Cutting off the Crimea and advancing east to a line running from Kharkov to Melitopol would be historical. The Axis advanced further than that in real life, but your progress is already lagging behind in the area so it's unlikely you'll reach the historical targets. There's no need to in any case. A line from Moscow running south to the Sea of Azov would be good enough. There's no strategic need to advance to Rostov in 1941.

Here's a link to a map covering the 1941 progress: August-December 1941

[elmo3]

Nice map.  Thanks.

[USSLockwood]

I'm fearful that General Mud is about to raise his ugly head.

[Balou]

Cutting off the Crimea and advancing east to a line running from Kharkov to Melitopol would be historical. The Axis advanced further than that in real life, but your progress is already lagging behind in the area so it's unlikely you'll reach the historical targets. There's no need to in any case. A line from Moscow running south to the Sea of Azov would be good enough. There's no strategic need to advance to Rostov in 1941.

In one of the posts the designers told us that - in WitE - you earn victory points for sov cities. At the same time you can seriously damage sov industrial capabilities which turns out in lesser supplies, oil, resources for factories and ultimately in AFV, planes etc, while your own economy receives some boost from resource/oil centers having been captured. I have added a map submitted by elmo (see attachment) that shows "factories". My point is: elmo won't probably go as far as the Axis did in fall/winter 41. Except from Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk, no major city seems to be in reach, but at least he could try to zero in on some of those factory centers.

It would be nice to learn from the dev team if there are some "tables" that a sov.player may consult to see how much resources/oil/factories he still holds. Although it seems that "victory points" for holding a city outweigh "factories/centers lost" one player may even consider trade-offs to some point.

[ComradeP]

In one of the posts the designers told us that - in WitE - you earn victory points for sov cities. At the same time you can seriously damage sov industrial capabilities which turns out in lesser supplies, oil, resources for factories and ultimately in AFV, planes etc, while your own economy receives some boost from resource/oil centers having been captured. I have added a map submitted by elmo (see attachment) that shows "factories". My point is: elmo won't probably go as far as the Axis did in fall/winter 41. Except from Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk, no major city seems to be in reach, but at least he could try to zero in on some of those factory centers.

It would be nice to learn from the dev team if there are some "tables" that a sov.player may consult to see how much resources/oil/factories he still holds. Although it seems that "victory points" for holding a city outweigh "factories/centers lost" one player may even consider trade-offs to some point.

To me, the main objective for the Axis in 1941 should be maximum gains for minimal losses and the creation of a stable defensive line prior to December. Overextension is not worth the risk to the Axis IMHO. A shorter line will also shorten the line for the Soviets, but in 1941 this is much better for the Axis than the Soviets, because they'll be lacking large quantities of credible forces that could break through a defensive line manned by rested and fairly up to strength Axis forces. If the Axis advance too far, history will probably repeat itself and they'll take disproportionate losses compared to the quality of the troops engaging them. If you miss out on some victory points in order to make sure half your army doesn't end up understrength, that's more than worth it. The Axis need to preserve forces, the Soviets need to hold territory, it's not the other way around.

I'm guessing the AI has moved every factory in the western and central Ukraine to the east by now, at least that would be the sensible thing to do. A continued Axis advance would be so slow that the remaining factories could also be moved. Taking factories/production centres is of course an important part of the war in the East, but by now the gains probably won't justify the losses.

If I read the map correctly, the 3 dots west of Rostov are (from left to right) Berdyansk, Mariupol and Taganrog. If you take a look at the map I linked to earlier, advancing further than Berdyansk would create a serious overextension of the line. Preferably the Axis will advance until Melitopol (south of Zaporizhzhya, the red dot south of Dnepropetrovsk) and reach the Sea of Azov south of it. Likewise, advancing to Moscow is likely to be pointless if you can't hold on to Tula and Klin.

I'm not a gambler, I won't go much further than calculated risks, and overextension is a big no-no for me.

[elmo3]

Well I'm afraid real life is conspiring against me today guys.  Unlikely I will have time for my next turn but we'll see.

[Balou]

I am not a fan of an overextended frontline either. What I want to hear from the dev/AAR team is what are reasonable objectives in a situation like this, where a major part of the Ukraine is still under sov control. Agreed, the Axis will soon have to dig in, for a couple of good reasons you mentioned. My "problem" is that I don't have to much knowledge about what is realistic within game mechanics. I went across a couple of posts to find out e.g. how far units can move - well at least I know that there are MP and that the amount of MP is displayed, but I don't know what are the minimums and the maximums for let's say a PzDiv or InfDiv in clear weather, in mud and so forth. So maybe we can deduce from the AAR-author (elmo) what he expects to be realistic objectives. For example: "Kharkov is out of reach even under best weather conditions".

Relocation of factories: in one of the posts the dev team mentioned that sov rail capacities are limited to the point that by far not all industries can be evacuated, since the Sov need a lot of rail capacity for moving troops to hotspots.

[ComradeP]

Relocation of factories: in one of the posts the dev team mentioned that sov rail capacities are limited to the point that by far not all industries can be evacuated, since the Sov need a lot of rail capacity for moving troops to hotspots.

"Limited" as in: limited if you want to move troops to the front by rail. To me, relocation of the factories would have priority over moving large numbers of men to the front. Even in its best shape, a Rifle division isn't going to stop the German advance. If you look at the strength value, they're about 1 offensive/1 defensive strength for most units. I doubt a Rifle division that has plenty of disabled equipment due to a long march will have a significantly lower life expectancy than a regular Rifle division assuming the enemy wants to break through.

As, weirdly, there doesn't seem to be a system in place where a greater distance travelled costs more rail points, you can dump the factories in or beyond the Urals for the same cost as moving them 10 kilometres.

After a few turns moving most frontline factories to the rear, rail transport could be spend on moving units into the area. The Axis advance is simply unstoppable in many areas, so moving out the factories seems like the best thing to do. A Sir Robin defense seems to be a good strategy for the Soviets. The Soviets can afford to lose land, especially if the factories are gone. Defending the border areas will only mean sending men to their deaths for the Soviets. More than a token defense doesn't seem to be a good idea.

It's all about the preferred playing style as the Soviets, though. I prefer a defensive style with backhand blows in most wargames. The AI in Elmo's case seems to be more defensive than the Soviets were in real life too, not wasting many men on futile counteroffensives. Soviet units in crucial areas do seem to be short on manpower, the Axis advance to Moscow was a bit easy after a troubling start. Elmo's advance, with a minor advance in the south and the emphasis in the center, would be possible in real life, but the Soviet player should be able to stage a more capable defense than the AI in Elmo's game.

[Balou]

As, weirdly, there doesn't seem to be a system in place where a greater distance travelled costs more rail points, you can dump the factories in or beyond the Urals for the same cost as moving them 10 kilometres

Where did this info came from ? It just wouldn't make sense.

After a few turns moving most frontline factories to the rear, rail transport could be spend on moving units into the area.

Just for your information, I added what I did find in: The Soviet economy and the Red Army, 1930-1945 by Walter Scott Dunn (see attachment).

[wiking62]

Is the distance a routed unit moves limited?
 
How exactly do the game mechanics work, ie. does a unit have to be disrupted before it routs?
 
Will the Axis forces suffer attrition during winter turns, especially in 1941?

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

... The AI in Elmo's case seems to be more defensive than the Soviets were in real life too, not wasting many men on futile counteroffensives. ...

Just a quick note on this while I have a minute tonight. One thing you can't see easily (or at all I guess) in my AAR is that on many of my attacks the AI is committing reserves to the battles. These troops are considered to be counterattacking. So even though the AI is not initiating many if any attacks they are constantly counterattacking.