GC 76mm (Sov) vs Ketza (Ketza Welcome)

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

I have also found in my games that stacks that hold up to 1 attack often suffer badly when attacked again by fresh troops. Kharkov did look as if it was attacked twice - tho' it may have been a recce mission 1st time.

Actually Kharkov was only attacked once as far as I could tell, although I suppose I could have missed a battle in the results screen. And yes it showed the defense at 930 CV, dropping to 27, a 97% decrease. Again, these units were all entrenched and he absolutely crushed all of them. The only viable tactic that I see for the remainder of the season is to run. He will go through an unentrenched carpet, or any other conceivable defensive architecture, like a hot knife through butter.

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

I think your problem goes back to your high losses in summer 41, which resulted in a weaker blizzard offensive which in turn means Germans are stronger than historically now. By contrast your units are still very weak as you have recognised. This means you can't stand up to him yet. IMHO you need to revise your tactics and play the long game.

My losses in the summer were about 3.8 mln IIRC. While fairly high, these were not the primary reason for the "low" losses inflicted on the Germans during the blizzard--the main reason was that in any area of the front where I had decent forces, he simply retreated every turn, so I could not get off attacks. Also, at the time (under 1.03) I was under the incorrect impression from all of the moaning from German players that German units simply melted away from attrition during the blizzard if they were not holed up in a city somewhere, even if not attacked. That is clearly wrong, I will know better next time.

Finally, I have been playing "the long game", I hardly expected to hold my existing lines during this season, but now my concern is whether a long game will be possible--as far as I can tell based on all of his post-blizzard attacks, he will simply run roughshod over my entire line and any effort at defense will be futile. Given his last few attacks, I have little reason to suspect otherwise.

I'm rather surprised that no one can seem to give even a partial explanation of how my CVs could have fallen by so much and so consistently. Are the combat mechanics really such a black box?

[Tarhunnas]

How is your truck situation? If it's too bad it can affect supply and I think combat in some (for me mysterious) way.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

How is your truck situation? If it's too bad it can affect supply and I think combat in some (for me mysterious) way.

I'll have to check about trucks, but IIRC, I have about the number of trucks that I need; I certainly don't think I have a big deficit. Also, I'm not an expert on reading all of the reports, but in general, I seemed to have all of the necessary fuel, ammo, supplies, etc., although it sure seems like my units didn't have any ammo!

[kirkgregerson]

Can you please post a loses screen and oob too? Yeah, those combats seem odd. Maybe get a developer involved to review the saved turn file? Could this be a regression in v1.04 with combat for some odd reason?

If the developer thinks it is WAD, all you can do is keep giving ground. Don't let him encircle or whack your troops all spring/summer/fall.

Historically the Soviets tried to take the initiative in spr 42 with the ill conceived Kharkov offensive which lead to a serious depletion of the southern front. In conjunction with the planned German offensive Blau, the Soviets had no choice but to continue to retreat in the south for lack of troops. Granted you had no offensive in spr 42 that lost 500k men, but giving ground is still probably the only choice if your troops are being decimated like displayed in those combats.



Thanks

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

Can you please post a loses screen and oob too? Yeah, those combats seem odd. Maybe get a developer involved to review the saved turn file? Could this be a regression in v1.04 with combat for some odd reason?

If the developer thinks it is WAD, all you can do is keep giving ground. Don't let him encircle or whack your troops all spring/summer/fall.

Will try to post losses and OOB tonight. I think I've got about 6.3 mln men, losses of about 4.7 million, but am not 100% sure. Last I checked, he had about 3.3 mln or so (Germans only).

I was kind of hoping a developer or play-tester would pop in and say "those results are normal because of factors x, y, and z..." but no such luck. I guess it is possible it is a bug, but I suspect it is just the result of some obscure and poorly understood combat mechanics, I would sure like to know what they are!

Also, I want to point out that I don't necessarily think that his advance is "wrong", but the ease with which he did it is what bothers me, because it seems to indicate that he'll be able to attack all across the front with ease. Or maybe there is some unexplained reason why that is not the case...

He regularly achieved very high final odds in his attacks, far in excess of the 2:1 necessary to force a retreat. Maybe tonight I'll post the intitial and final odds for the battles, just to see what they looked like. To add insult to injury, according to my air recon, most of his attacking troops actually started several hexes behind his lines, so it is not even like he started right on the front line.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: 76mm


Actually Kharkov was only attacked once as far as I could tell, although I suppose I could have missed a battle in the results screen. And yes it showed the defense at 930 CV, dropping to 27, a 97% decrease. Again, these units were all entrenched and he absolutely crushed all of them. The only viable tactic that I see for the remainder of the season is to run. He will go through an unentrenched carpet, or any other conceivable defensive architecture, like a hot knife through butter.


Finally, I have been playing "the long game", I hardly expected to hold my existing lines during this season, but now my concern is whether a long game will be possible--as far as I can tell based on all of his post-blizzard attacks, he will simply run roughshod over my entire line and any effort at defense will be futile. Given his last few attacks, I have little reason to suspect otherwise.

I'm rather surprised that no one can seem to give even a partial explanation of how my CVs could have fallen by so much and so consistently. Are the combat mechanics really such a black box?

1 The CV of 930 for that div was clearly bonkers - 93 is more likely to have been real value. From the screen it was outnumbered 3:1 by better troops with a lot of air support. I didn't think other combat results were out of order given that tanks and cav. are hopeless in defence and your inf divs looked pretty weak.

2 Apologies if my comment about long game read as being a bit offensive - it was not intended to be. There's only 1 way to tell if it will be possible. I'm sure it is but I can't pretend to give an informed guess when you will take Berlin.

3 I don't think combat mechanics are either a black box or not WAD but we are getting some unreal numbers in CV numbers IMHO.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

TD, sorry, but I have thought about this considerably and do not think that successive lines are the answer against a fresh enemy. All they do is allow the enemy to blast through each line more easily, along with more opportunities for pockets. What specific advantages do you see in successive lines? If I had had a thinner line, he would already be ten hexes behind my lines rather than still barely contained. [EDIT: OK, MAYBE 5-6 RATHER THAN 10, BUT SAME DIFFERENCE.]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

On the general issue of German capabilities vs the Soviets in early 1942, I have not played this far with a 1941 GC, what I can say from my experience in the 1942 GC is that the Germans can relatively easily make this kind of penetrations in early 1942 if they prepare properly and concentrate on a limited sector of the front.

[...] but you cannot expect to be able to build a line that will hold and stop the Krauts cold.

Tarhunnas hits the nail on the head [8D] Carpet defence or successive defensive lines you CANNOT draw a line on the map and affirm "here they will be stopped". They won't. Just like on 1941, the Soviets face similar problems. The only difference is that the Germans cannot launch a big offensive along the whole front. Only in chosen sectors. But they are still way too strong in these places.

What's the problem with the carpet defence?

[needless to say I am carpet psycho myself but I am well aware of this problem...because I believed Sabre21 when he said this defence CAN be destroyed in one mere turn. The truth is this kind of defence is fine BECAUSE my opponent does NOT know how to destroy it...]

The problem is all the eggs are in one basket. It's massive, truly massive. This means you need MANY units. And therefore you will hardly have something behind (because you need basically everyone to make this defence)... just in case the enemy manages -after all- to destroy it...

So it's destoyed = you are caught the pants down.

On the other hand, what's the advantage of the multiple defensive lines? Just like the carpet defence they WILL be destroyed, YES. But there will always be defensive lines, with decent fortified levels. And that will be your next stand.

Now think about the real war Soviets. As I said on my AAR, during the '42 summer the depth of their defence was between 500 and 600 km (more than 31 hexes in the game! [X(]). In other words, the Soviets would have never massed all their armies in the front-line forming a carpet defence with NOTHING behind. They relied on depth. And rightly so, er... the panzers might create a big mess if you don't pay attention! [:D]

On my game, that's the type of defence I will be using on 1942. It makes a lot of sense, in my opinion. The carpet defence, humm, it's a risky gamble...

Of course a great scenario would be a carpet defence, then a checkerboard line behind, and then a linear defensive line behind... and perhaps another checkerboard and one more time a defensive line. But can we afford it? If it's a critical place and the Germans are massing their forces then of course the Soviets could concentrate as well their forces. But no matter what, you need depth [:)]

A screenshot:

[PeeDeeAitch]

TD is right, but one thing I would do on his 2nd picture is have units right behind the line when it is a river, that added cost to cross even a minor river into a ZOC will slow things down even more. In such a deep defense, the first 2.5 lines can be broken, maybe even penetrations back 8-9 hexes, but likely not further. The Soviet player will give up a few units, but do two things, not have a breakthrough, and wear down the tanks.

[TulliusDetritus]

PDH, oh, I did not pay attention to this [:)] I was drawing circles here and there. A linear defense + checkerboard + linear defense + checkerboard + etc [8D] Needless to say, you are correct, you must pay attention to the geographic thing: rivers, marshes, hills etc.

[loricas]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I'm rather surprised that no one can seem to give even a partial explanation of how my CVs could have fallen by so much and so consistently. Are the combat mechanics really such a black box?

the modified CV is the CV after combat, used do define the winner/loser: nothing strange that your final CV is so low

manual: 15.8

[76mm]

I am still totally unconvinced that having multiple one-deep lines is better than a carpet (sure, if you can six lines, as shown in your picture, that might work, but that is hardly feasible). I don't see how a penetration of 8-9 hexes as PDH suggests is any better than can be achieved with a carpet. I also think that having the second line more than about 3 hexes behind the first is dangerous, because it gives the Germans too much room to maneuver.

Generally though I agree that the best is a carpet backed by a checkerboard--in fact my plan was prior to the first campaigning turn to "explode" the last couple rows of the carpet into a checkerboard, but in the meantime have them creating fortifs that could be used by retreating units from the carpet.

That said, the defensive architecture also depends on terrain and other factors. Around Moscow for instance, where there is some good defensive terrain and I have less ability to give up space, I actually do have multiple strongly fortified lines, some of which have been in place since July 1941. I will try to post some screen shots of this. I had this kind of arrangement in the North as well, but decided that I didn't need it up there. In the south, I think a carpet is better, but we'll see.

As far as the CVs go...while a CV of 930 seems high, I would suggest that a heavily fortified rifle division (and a relatively strong rifle division at that) in a city should be able to put up some kind of defense rather than being bounced out on the first attack. Same goes for many of the other fortified hexes; I'm not saying that they should have been impregnable, but you think the Germans would have to make some kind of effort, when in fact they blew through a fortified area 60 miles deep with ease (ie, achieving odds of 8:1, etc.).

My home internet is down right now, so I couldn't post the various screen shots people requested.

[kirkgregerson]

I still think if you're looking for specific reasons why all those battles went so badly, you need to get a developer involved. Nobody else really knows the somewhat black box of how combat/loses works. I think we all have some general ideas and theories, but obviously I have no explanation for you on why all 20+ of those battles went so poorly for the Soviets. Partly because I'd have to see more detail about the units involved and other factors.

I strongly suggest you try and get somebody on the development team to look at this situation. If it is some sort of bug with v1.04, they need to know ASAP so they can started with a fix. I think simply sending in a save game from the turn before and target turn would be enough for the developers to gain some insight.

Personally, since I'm playing axis at this time..if it is some OP axis combat bug...take your time sending in that info to a developer.

[;)]

[PeeDeeAitch]

8-9 hexes would be with two panzer armies - and they would be forced to make many attacks, they would be worn down, and they would not break into the open (the goal of any deep thrust). In the following turns there might be more expansion, but this would be limited - inside of 4 turns the entire force would have to pull back to refit.

That is why this is good, it ties up a large number of troops, stops exploitation, limits full scale encirclements...and the rest of the line is far more secure. A thinner carpet can be broken, and if there are 2-3 panzer armies in the region (and remember "in the region" is even 15 hexes away), then can pound through and be in the open. That is the one thing the Soviets want to avoid.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch
8-9 hexes would be with two panzer armies - and they would be forced to make many attacks, they would be worn down, and they would not break into the open (the goal of any deep thrust). In the following turns there might be more expansion, but this would be limited - inside of 4 turns the entire force would have to pull back to refit.

That is why this is good, it ties up a large number of troops, stops exploitation, limits full scale encirclements...and the rest of the line is far more secure. A thinner carpet can be broken, and if there are 2-3 panzer armies in the region (and remember "in the region" is even 15 hexes away), then can pound through and be in the open. That is the one thing the Soviets want to avoid.

I think you're right if the carpet is not entrenched, but if it is, I'd rather have a carpet. As it is, Ketza smashed to the back line of my carpet, but not beyond, so it could have been worse. If the carpet had not been entrenched (as now it will not be), he'd probably be behind me by now.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

I strongly suggest you try and get somebody on the development team to look at this situation. If it is some sort of bug with v1.04, they need to know ASAP so they can started with a fix. I think simply sending in a save game from the turn before and target turn would be enough for the developers to gain some insight.

No one else seems to find anything odd about the situation, and I assume that devs read these AAR threads and have not chimed in, so I'm not willing to assume that there is a bug. But I will say that it does not seem right to me...

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I think you're right if the carpet is not entrenched, but if it is, I'd rather have a carpet. As it is, Ketza smashed to the back line of my carpet, but not beyond, so it could have been worse. If the carpet had not been entrenched (as now it will not be), he'd probably be behind me by now.

Be glad he has not adapted to 1942 realities! That requires 2 panzer armies...that could have been messy. That is how I did my spring encirclement in my AAR - two on the north pincer, two on the south. My later penetration in summer of 1942 took 3 panzer armies.

[76mm]

But its early, the campaign season hasn't even really started yet. That's my concern, I think this was basically meant as little more than a probing recon-in-force, and it smashed all the way through my line. Once he sees how easy it is, and gets things teed up for June, as far as I can tell I'm screwed.

[76mm]

I'll be gone for the weekend, not sure how much I'll be able to look in on this forum, so wanted to post a couple of last things:

Here is a table showing initial and final odds in the 28 attacks:

Odds
Initial Final
1.2 12.6
1.7 7.8
2.9 10.2
1.3 17.6
1.2 5.5
1.4 4.5
1.5 11.6
2.2 41.9
1.7 13.3
0.9 4.3
1.0 14.1
1.3 11.7
2.5 7.1
2.1 4.5
1.8 12.0
1.7 3.5
0.5 2.3
1.7 7.3
1.0 29.3
5.0 7.2
3.6 44.6
0.3 11.0
0.8 2.5
1.5 16.5
1.1 10.9
0.9 4.9
0.8 1.4
1.6 2.8
1.6 11.5 AVERAGE

As you can see, on average his odds went from an initial 1.6:1 to a final 11.5:1. This has been kind of my point--not that he was able to make this attack, but it was so freaking easy for him.

OK, no more on this from me, at least for now [:D], but I have say that it is a bit disappointing/disturbing that no one has been able to provide even a partial explanation of the mechanics of this kind of dramatic shift in CVs/odds, or how to prevent it. I don't find it particularly satisfying to play games in which I don't have some level of understanding of the mechanics, which seems to be completely lacking here (my own fault, but all the same no one has enlightened me...).

Here are the OOB and loss screenies:

[76mm]

Finished Turn 47.

As mentioned, here is a shot of my Moscow defenses. Until the last turn, I was very confident that they would hold, now I recognize that all of these fortifications, etc. are pretty much tissue paper:


Here is the patched-up line near Kharkov:


Finally, here is the Crimea, things moving more slowly than I thought down there, but with a few clear turns he should be able to clear most of the peninsula:


Still rearranging my commands, some of my fronts are seriously overloaded, and I had a few real duds in Front commands. For 1942, I want the main commands to be Fronts rather than armies, so I've put most of my good commander at the Front level (during the blizzard I had most of them at the Army level).

Question about the Crimea: in Sevastopol I have space for one more unit: I am thinking it would be best to put an Army HQ there rather than just another rifle division, ec., so that the HQ can provide supply, support units, etc. At the same time, I could probably use all the combat power I can get down there to hold Sevastopol. Any thoughts?

Also, I just noticed that my troops in Odessa just vanished. No combat, I guess they surrendered, but they were in supply via the port and had some supply (I have been supplying them via air every few weeks). WTF happened to them?

[76mm]

Turn 48 more or less complete. Mud turn, so pretty quiet. Continued to shuffle units around, trying to move my Shock Armies closer to his attack last turn, but thus weakening the sectors where they are now. Decisions, decisions...

Also spent a couple of dozen admin points moving RRCBs from "locked" Fronts to "locked" Armies. All of them had been created at the Army level and then "leaked" to the fronts during the blizzard when they went out to repair rail. That is, they were at the Armies, went out to repair rail during the blizzard, and then went back to the Front rather than the Army where they came from. Very irritating, and a huge waste of AP. One of my Fronts had about 15 RRCBs, and the armies in that Front had ZERO.