Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21

elmo3
Posts: 5797
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by elmo3 »

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I guess a limit would make sense, and I also doubt the average player will get close to the maximum, but having a limit will take some getting used to. In WitP, it's also technically possible to save so many pp's that you can pull a handful of divisions out of, say, Manchuria on short notice, so I do acknowledge the need for a limit to minimize gamey behaviour/abuse of the feature.

Can you show an organization screen for one of those fortified units? I see both the Axis and Soviet fortified units start as battalions (or maybe they're split up?). What kind of equipment can a fortified zone use, I'm guessing it's light on men and heavy on equipment like regular fortifications?

Well I consider myself an average player. However keep two things in mind. This is my first play of the 41 campaign so obviously next time I'll do a lot of things differently. I would certainly be doing better had I micro managed my generals, support units, air recon, and airbase bombing missions. Not building forts and managing generals allowed me to save a lot of points. But I only have so many hours in the day and doing all that would really slow down the AAR. So I sacrificed that to keep this moving for testing purposes and to make it more fun for you guys to read.

Image
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
ComradeP
Posts: 6992
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:11 pm

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by ComradeP »

What mistakes did the Germans make in 41 up to the point we have reached in game?

Serious overextension in the south for virtually no long term strategic benefit.
I dont think they could have done more to inflict losses on the Russians. They still lost 3/4 of a million men in this period. I think armchair generals deserve to face a Russia that defends with the same fanaticism so we can actually change history and not teleport through it and come out with more men and tanks than we started the campaign with.

In real life, the Soviets kept making fairly pointless counterattacks that sacrificed a lot of men, but also caused attrition to the Axis.

The Axis supply line was also in a much worse shape than Elmo's, as he's had time to move rail conversion units around and isn't pushing on all fronts at once. His southern front is about 200-300 kilometres west of its historical 1941 high water mark. The Leningrad front is about 100 kilometres west of Tikhvin. The front in the Velikiye Luki/Rzhev/Moscow/Kaluga area is about 50-100 kilometres away from the 1941 furthest advance. The central part of the front, around Gomel, is 300 kilometres west of the furthest advance in 1941 and the Axis haven't set a foot on the Crimea either. Naturally, if the Axis are not pushing the Soviets east like the historical Axis did, there will be far less casualties.
SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer
elmo3
Posts: 5797
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by elmo3 »

One more screen shot and my work is done for today.  [8D]  Here is the proposed list of hotkeys.  The usual disclaimer applies that this list is subject to change so keys you see here may not make it into the launch version and others may be added.

Image
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
Smirfy
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:24 pm

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by Smirfy »

Serious overextension in the south for virtually no long term strategic benefit.

650,000 men destroyed in Kiev, Donetz Basin, moving the front beyond bomber range of Polesti and Ukrainian Harvest.

In real life, the Soviets kept making fairly pointless counterattacks that sacrificed a lot of men, but also caused attrition to the Axis.

Does the AI just roll over then and not cause the Axis attrition? Do adjacent units cause each other attrition even if the player does not attack? Does terrain and defence level modify this attrition?
The Axis supply line was also in a much worse shape than Elmo's, as he's had time to move rail conversion units around and isn't pushing on all fronts at once. His southern front is about 200-300 kilometres west of its historical 1941 high water mark. The Leningrad front is about 100 kilometres west of Tikhvin. The front in the Velikiye Luki/Rzhev/Moscow/Kaluga area is about 50-100 kilometres away from the 1941 furthest advance. The central part of the front, around Gomel, is 300 kilometres west of the furthest advance in 1941 and the Axis haven't set a foot on the Crimea either. Naturally, if the Axis are not pushing the Soviets east like the historical Axis did, there will be far less casualties.

56 AFV's a week c'mon Pz divisions lost a third of their vechciles in a day and that was in JULY!!!!! Only 300,000 men lost and the games front is longer than the historical ie there is more contact with the enemy.. Explain the Roumanian situation ;)

How is 1942 or 43 going to pan out if production continually outstrips losses. ;)

wmcalpine
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:03 pm

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by wmcalpine »

Elmo3,

I am enjoying the AAR. I appreciate the time and effort that you are taking to throw us all some bones on this fine game. I was wondering if it would be possible to post the OOB totals at the start of Barbarossa? Apologies if you had already done that.

Bill
elmo3
Posts: 5797
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by elmo3 »

ORIGINAL: Smirfy
...

Does the AI just roll over then and not cause the Axis attrition? Do adjacent units cause each other attrition even if the player does not attack? Does terrain and defence level modify this attrition?

...

The AI is a work in progress and getting better with each update. In the last couple of turns the Soviet AI has made up to 30 attrition type attacks. This is a recent improvement. There is no attrition just based on being adjacent to enemy units AFAIK.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
elmo3
Posts: 5797
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by elmo3 »

ORIGINAL: wmcalpine

Elmo3,

I am enjoying the AAR. I appreciate the time and effort that you are taking to throw us all some bones on this fine game. I was wondering if it would be possible to post the OOB totals at the start of Barbarossa? Apologies if you had already done that.

Bill

Glad you like the AAR. It is a lot of work but a labor of love too.

Here is the OOB at the start of the '41 campaign. Note that the next update we get will have some significant changes to that campaign so these numbers will probably change.

Image
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
ComradeP
Posts: 6992
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:11 pm

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by ComradeP »

650,000 men destroyed in Kiev, Donetz Basin, moving the front beyond bomber range of Polesti and Ukrainian Harvest.

Which bombers would bomb the Ukraine? They wouldn't be able to seriously damage Ploesti even if they tried. The whole idea of "WWII VVS strategic bombing missions" is almost a contradiction in terms. What would they bomb with? Unescorted DB-3's/IL-4's manned by poorly trained pilots? As the Il-4 had a range of about 3.800 kilometres, Ploesti would basically always be in range. The Luftwaffe would blow straight through VVS bomber formations. In 1941, shorter fronts really work in favour of the Axis too, as the Soviets don't have the human avalanche mixed with some quality forces they will have starting in late 1943.
Does the AI just roll over then and not cause the Axis attrition?

The AI, and the Soviet player, doesn't necessarily have to cause the historical level of attrition. I'd say that after the latest patch and subsequent attacks, the AI is more historical. The counterattacks are mostly pointless, but they cause casualties to the Axis.
56 AFV's a week c'mon Pz divisions lost a third of their vechciles in a day and that was in JULY!!!!!

The losses displayed are permanent losses, which were really not that high as long as the Germans were not retreating and had time to recover disabled vehicles/won the battles so they could recover their vehicles. We also don't know at what point the losses screenshot was taken: the end of the German turn or the end of the Soviet turn. I'm guessing the end of the German turn, so for the real turn 20 losses, you'd have to take a screenshot prior to the logistics phase of turn 21 I guess. The "1/3 of their vehicles in a day" figure would be possible during intense operations, and the vast majority of those vehicles would be in a workshop somewhere and back with the division after a while.

If you read about the casualty figures of Kursk 1943, you'll see they mostly turn ugly when the Germans are withdrawing, because they can no longer recover their vehicles. At the start of Zitadelle, Fourth Panzer Army had 884 operational tanks, at the end of the second day, the operational tank strength was 865 tanks. After that, tank strength fell rapidly to an average of over 500 tanks, with a low of 466, but keep in mind that the battle was being fought in the middle of one big minefield and what was possibly the most fortified point and heavily defended part of the Eastern Front at the time. The final reports suggest that the vast majority of the losses were mobility kills which could not be recovered later on. Of course, for all that to happen, you'd have to fight a battle like Kursk and Elmo didn't.
Only 300,000 men lost and the games front is longer than the historical ie there is more contact with the enemy..

Actually, as I pointed out in my previous post, the front is a lot shorter, which doesn't automatically mean more contact, it really depends on what the Soviets are trying to do. As indicated by Elmo, the Soviets have made some counterattacks but the Soviets didn't go all-in, they didn't really try to push Elmo away from a city/an area prior to the latest patch.
Explain the Roumanian situation

I am unfamiliar with the Romanian side of the war, perhaps they mobilized more men, the developers will have to answer that question.
SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer
elmo3
Posts: 5797
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by elmo3 »

Only look at the total losses on the reports I post.  Current turn and recent battle losses are meaningless due to the point at which  I take the screen shot.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 33494
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by Joel Billings »

I tried to explain this in an earlier post. You are not seeing casualties. You are seeing Killed, and Captured numbers. You are also seeing a "disabled" number which are not all casualites. 2% of these are sent back to the manpower pool each turn. There are many many more casualties going on in the units. They are the damaged units that are not destroyed. Some amount of these elements remain with their unit as damaged (they don't fight), and some amount are repaired within the unit and put back into action, and some are disbanded and sent back to the manpower pool to be used as general replacements.

IIRC, someone posted that Axis losses were around 300k (actually killed) up through November. So the game is not as far off as you think, although as I was saying it does look like lighter losses than history, and I think a big part of that is Lee's play. The fact that he's stopped attacking in October instead of December will reduce losses as well.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 33494
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by Joel Billings »

Just to be clear, a fortified zone is not a fort. It is a unit, that contains around 2000k, of which 270 are labor. The rest are about 2 companies of men and support troops. That's when they are up to full strength. They will help increase the fortification level of the hex (because like all troops they will dig), but not by a bunch. Units adjacent to the enemy dig less than those in the rear (since they can't spend all their time digging but have to worry about the enemy).
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 33494
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by Joel Billings »

By the way, Lee's doing a great job given it's his first game and considering all the posting he's doing. Thank you for the AAR.

Lee was mistaken about attrition. All units take attrition each turn. Attrition is greatly increased for units that are adjacent to enemy units. Lee, didn't we tell you about that rule? Actually, the difference in the level of attrition taken was added months ago, but it's easy to miss all the changes made during development (not sure if Lee was even testing when we made that change).
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
elmo3
Posts: 5797
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by elmo3 »

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

By the way, Lee's doing a great job given it's his first game and considering all the posting he's doing. Thank you for the AAR.

Lee was mistaken about attrition. ...

Thanks. Didn't know about the attrition so it's good you caught that. It's probably in the manual already but there is a lot to remember.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
wmcalpine
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:03 pm

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by wmcalpine »

Lee,

Thank you for posting the OOB from the beginning of Barbarossa. The increase in strength of the Russian army from June is scary. Winter will be interesting to be sure. I am looking forward to it.

By the way, is there a level of detail in the OOB totals by equipment type (i.e. AFVs by specific equipment type)? It would be interesting to see the quantative and qualitative changes in each force over time.

Bill
stevekten
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by stevekten »

Keep up the good work! reading this post is a daily ritual with my coffee :)
User avatar
PyleDriver
Posts: 5906
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:38 pm
Location: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by PyleDriver »

Winter is scary. If you havn't spent the time to stop (mid Oct.) and dig in, it gets outright ugly for the Axis. Its 12 weeks of pure hell, and seems to never end...I know Gary worked a good AI for it a long time back. I would like to see what it does now...
Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester
elmo3
Posts: 5797
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:00 am

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by elmo3 »

ORIGINAL: wmcalpine

...

By the way, is there a level of detail in the OOB totals by equipment type (i.e. AFVs by specific equipment type)? It would be interesting to see the quantative and qualitative changes in each force over time.

Bill

Dunno. Don't recall seeing that but I'll defer to one of the OOB guys on that one.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
User avatar
kfmiller41
Posts: 1063
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:00 pm
Location: Saint Marys, Ga
Contact:

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by kfmiller41 »

I guess like smurfy I am just confused by the number, and don't get me wrong, I could imagine lower losses in a more conservative play style. That would also probably mean a front that didn't go as far east as historically and with less wear and tear, which seems like what is happening. But just judging from the numbers being posted (which is what we have to go by) it seems like the German army has increased it's tank numbers by 400. Based on what I have read on the 41 campaign (Glantz, Erickson, Carell etc) the Germans lost many more tanks than they could replace from enemy action and attrition/wear and tear from the distances involved. Are we just not seeing all the losses?

Also thank you Elmo for posting this great AAR, and matrix for getting it made. I can hardly wait till it is ready and look forward to seeing it evolve some more.
You have the ability to arouse various emotions in me: please select carefully.
User avatar
PyleDriver
Posts: 5906
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:38 pm
Location: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by PyleDriver »

Miller, enjoy that Lee loves the game, If Andy or I had jumped on this AAR, well things would have different. Buts those are things that lead us on...Or job is to get it as close to historic we can...An the challenge is set before us...
Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester
Smirfy
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:24 pm

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

Post by Smirfy »

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Only look at the total losses on the reports I post.  Current turn and recent battle losses are meaningless due to the point at which  I take the screen shot.

If you look at your total losses and divide them by 20 that gives you an average of 56 AFV's per turn. AFV in this game I assume means Tanks, AG/SPA, Armoured Cars and Armoured troop carriers.
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”