Persistence is a virtue - Encircled (sov) vs Kamil (Axis)

[KamilS]

AGC pz forces (13 start) - 53 CV (not including 13 CV of rebuilt mot corps)

[KamilS]

AGS pz forces (13 start) - 103 CV

[Pipewrench]

great job so far Kamil.

Listen to no one but your heart and all those key centers in the south screaming to be liberated.
When you think you done with the push in the south move with decisive armor thrusts back to cut off units you passed. You have one shot at creating a panic so make it count.

[KamilS]

pipewrench

great job so far Kamil.

Thanks. But to be honest, I think I am loosing.

[johnnyvagas]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
You're not being fair with Encircled [:)] As Alfonso said the Frontier District Massacres (aka the German mega pockets) are POSSIBLE because of the CHECKERBOARD thing. Yes, the Germans use a checkerboard to surround the Soviet hordes on the first turns [;)] From the screenshots I can clearly see what is Encircled's strategy (very familiar because I did the same). He is heavily defending Leningrad and Moscow. In the south, he lets his opponent do whatever he wants... I did the same. So the checkerboard in the south is because a) he is too weak and b) this is tank country.

It’s not an indictment of his playing skills. He’s using what the game lets him use to maximize his chances of success within the games environment. And it’s pretty evident he’s studied your own use of the same in your lengthy AAR. But the game environment that rewards a player employing checker board defence ignores some very basic principals of war.

My post – for the good reasons I indicated within and which you did not include in your reply quote -- was directed at a game design that rewards this sort of approach to operational level defense. Formations have flanks and rear areas. These actually mean something in terms of a units combat power and its ability to defend itself. Presumably you are familiar with the principal of Stosstruppen and infiltration tactics and the eventual evolution of Stosstruppen tactics into “blitzkrieg”. The intention, in short, was to get into the rear of a unit and destroy artillery assets, disrupt or eliminate communications and command and control, destroy logistical support or supply trains for the guys in the trenches. Kill this “soft” stuff and the units combat elements wither and die on the vine very quickly.

Again Checker board relies upon a player tossing out a widely dispersed cordon of divisional and brigade sized formations over wide expanses of terrain. The main effect being:

I) Chew up Axis motorized units MPs
II) Chew up Axis fuel levels within these motorized units
III) Attrite Axis Motorized units in terms of fatigue and equipment break downs from long moves.
IV) And most importantly it telegraphs the intended schwerpunckt. Pts – I – III chew-up the crucial 1st turn MP bonus associated with HQ Build-up. The Russian Player than converges his reserves on the schwerhpunckt. The german is committed to this avenue of attack as on the 2nd turn of his push his mech units will have significantly lower MPs as they burned most of the HQ build-up fuel dealing with the widely dispersed checkerboard lines. It’s sort of like a skirmish line defense followed by a massive commitment of reserves to pack in around the schwerpunckt. And its effective if employed correctly. Like what we are seeing being done very effectively by Encircled in this AAR.

These are all very desirable things for the Russian player to do. The problem is course that units strung out with 20-mile gaps between their nearest flank anchor will by necessity form all around defensive positions to protect their artillery assets, their supply trains, and their command and control elements. All the crucial soft target aspects that were specifically the target of Stosstruppen and infiltrations tactics and eventually blitzkrieg tactics. And of course there has always been and probably always will be a profound psychological aspect to enemy units turning ones flank or appearing in ones rear areas.

When a divisional sized unit circles its wagons – so to speak – i.e. its various battalions and regiments are formed into a circular defense, the unit’s defensive frontage is going to be maybe ½ to 1/4 the frontage of that same unit when that unit is able to anchor its organic battalions\regiments on the flanks of friendly divisions to its right and left. Call it what ever suits your fancy – divisional laager, divisional hedgehog, circular defense…

A division that circles its battalions will exercise much less influence upon the surrounding terrain because of its consolidated defensive posture. Instead of the divisions battalions being stretched somewhat linearly across a ten mile hex, a divisional laager\hedgehog\circle is contracted into a area a fraction of the size of the hex. Aggressive patrolling and or placing fires on surrounding terrain (adjacent hexes), or whatever it is we all associate with zones of control, is equally contracted as a result of the circle your wagons tactics a division has to employ when it’s
all by it’s lonesome.

Some units are actually trained to survive and excel in these sorts of all around defensive postures. But the average divisional commander will be keenly aware of his flanks and rear area and the issues associated with an enemy unit suddenly appearing on its flank or within its rear area.

The tactics and tactical deployment a division would have to employ when its ass is hanging in the breeze are not replicated within the game. Thus the ability of players to successfully employ something like a “checker board” defense.

My criticism isn’t directed at players adopting tactics that are best suited to the game environment in which they are expected to perform within. The criticism is associated with assessing why this sort of player tactic is actually successful. It’s gamey because the reality of a unit that has nothing nothing on either flank but ether, is something very different than what is currently replicated within the games environment.

If the game environment replicated units with specific orientation for their associated combat power, than the player by default has to face the reality of what flanks and rear areas mean and how the like will dictate both tactical and operational approaches to attack and defense.

[Mynok]

It isn't necessary to think that the 'gaps' are empty. They have ZOC's in them meaning the enemy meets resistance going through there.

[TulliusDetritus]

johnnyvagas, yes, what Mynok said, the gaps are not really empty [:)]

And the checkerboard is only a tactic which is used (in the game) to slow the enemy down, buy time to prepare a proper defence. You are possibly right on your analysis -in the real world- by the way, that, I will NOT refute it [:)]

[kirkgregerson]

ORIGINAL: johnnyvagas

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
You're not being fair with Encircled [:)] As Alfonso said the Frontier District Massacres (aka the German mega pockets) are POSSIBLE because of the CHECKERBOARD thing. Yes, the Germans use a checkerboard to surround the Soviet hordes on the first turns [;)] From the screenshots I can clearly see what is Encircled's strategy (very familiar because I did the same). He is heavily defending Leningrad and Moscow. In the south, he lets his opponent do whatever he wants... I did the same. So the checkerboard in the south is because a) he is too weak and b) this is tank country.

It’s not an indictment of his playing skills. He’s using what the game lets him use to maximize his chances of success within the games environment. And it’s pretty evident he’s studied your own use of the same in your lengthy AAR. But the game environment that rewards a player employing checker board defense ignores some very basic principals of war.

My post – for the good reasons I indicated within and which you did not include in your reply quote -- was directed at a game design that rewards this sort of approach to operational level defense. Formations have flanks and rear areas. These actually mean something in terms of a units combat power and its ability to defend itself. Presumably you are familiar with the principal of Stosstruppen and infiltration tactics and the eventual evolution of Stosstruppen tactics into “blitzkrieg”. The intention, in short, was to get into the rear of a unit and destroy artillery assets, disrupt or eliminate communications and command and control, destroy logistical support or supply trains for the guys in the trenches. Kill this “soft” stuff and the units combat elements wither and die on the vine very quickly.

Again Checker board relies upon a player tossing out a widely dispersed cordon of divisional and brigade sized formations over wide expanses of terrain. The main effect being:

I) Chew up Axis motorized units MPs
II) Chew up Axis fuel levels within these motorized units
III) Attrite Axis Motorized units in terms of fatigue and equipment break downs from long moves.
IV) And most importantly it telegraphs the intended schwerpunckt. Pts – I – III chew-up the crucial 1st turn MP bonus associated with HQ Build-up. The Russian Player than converges his reserves on the schwerhpunckt. The german is committed to this avenue of attack as on the 2nd turn of his push his mech units will have significantly lower MPs as they burned most of the HQ build-up fuel dealing with the widely dispersed checkerboard lines. It’s sort of like a skirmish line defense followed by a massive commitment of reserves to pack in around the schwerpunckt. And its effective if employed correctly. Like what we are seeing being done very effectively by Encircled in this AAR.

These are all very desirable things for the Russian player to do. The problem is course that units strung out with 20-mile gaps between their nearest flank anchor will by necessity form all around defensive positions to protect their artillery assets, their supply trains, and their command and control elements. All the crucial soft target aspects that were specifically the target of Stosstruppen and infiltrations tactics and eventually blitzkrieg tactics. And of course there has always been and probably always will be a profound psychological aspect to enemy units turning ones flank or appearing in ones rear areas.

When a divisional sized unit circles its wagons – so to speak – i.e. its various battalions and regiments are formed into a circular defense, the unit’s defensive frontage is going to be maybe ½ to 1/4 the frontage of that same unit when that unit is able to anchor its organic battalions\regiments on the flanks of friendly divisions to its right and left. Call it what ever suits your fancy – divisional laager, divisional hedgehog, circular defense…

A division that circles its battalions will exercise much less influence upon the surrounding terrain because of its consolidated defensive posture. Instead of the divisions battalions being stretched somewhat linearly across a ten mile hex, a divisional laager\hedgehog\circle is contracted into a area a fraction of the size of the hex. Aggressive patrolling and or placing fires on surrounding terrain (adjacent hexes), or whatever it is we all associate with zones of control, is equally contracted as a result of the circle your wagons tactics a division has to employ when it’s
all by it’s lonesome.

Some units are actually trained to survive and excel in these sorts of all around defensive postures. But the average divisional commander will be keenly aware of his flanks and rear area and the issues associated with an enemy unit suddenly appearing on its flank or within its rear area.

The tactics and tactical deployment a division would have to employ when its ass is hanging in the breeze are not replicated within the game. Thus the ability of players to successfully employ something like a “checker board” defense.

My criticism isn’t directed at players adopting tactics that are best suited to the game environment in which they are expected to perform within. The criticism is associated with assessing why this sort of player tactic is actually successful. It’s gamey because the reality of a unit that has nothing nothing on either flank but ether, is something very different than what is currently replicated within the games environment.

If the game environment replicated units with specific orientation for their associated combat power, than the player by default has to face the reality of what flanks and rear areas mean and how the like will dictate both tactical and operational approaches to attack and defense.

I agree 100% with Johnny. The idea that the checkboard defense can be such a potent option for the Soviet player is almost entirely fictional based on real war tactics. I reminds me of the BOX tactics that the British and Commonwealth forces tried against Rommel in North Africa. If you're read about how disastrous these tactic usually ended up, then you can see how this same approach in WitE with the checkboard is so wrong. These units would be flanked and bypassed and starved of supplies and dealt with in time by following up infantry forces. Given the very low (WitE) morale of the Soviet units in 1941, most of these isolate units would be surrendering.

So the real question is what went wrong in the mechanics that allows the checkboard defense to be so potent? In part the game does not reward attacker for flanking an enemy. Simple put if an attacker has 2 or more units attacking an enemy units and that enemy unit does not have another friendly unit adjacent to it to offset the flanking attack, it should suffer a semi-large combat penalty. I have always had a huge problem with WitE completely ignoring flanking tactics on units and have not heard an argument as to why this topic was avoided, missed, or just ignored? You don't have to be a graduate of West Point to understand how important the concept of a flank attack is in combat. If the designers/devs were think that the disposition of a units allows it to always be position to protect it's flanks, well that is pure falsie. Were talking in most cases a Soviet units with about 10k men defending 10 miles, keeping in mind never all all units up front on the lines as reserve battalions or regiments are kept behind lines as reserves. So units are not going to be very effect covering a 10x10 mile box. With to help with the math is 40 miles or 30 miles in the case the rear is not protected.

So I hope in the future the devs wake up to the idea of flank modifies. Play enough war games that consider flanks, I find it hard to believe this game could even go this far without it a consideration.

Please somebody tell me what I'm missing here?

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

So I hope in the future the devs wake up to the idea of flank modifies. Play enough war games that consider flanks, I find it hard to believe this game could even go this far without it a consideration.

Please somebody tell me what I'm missing here?

Actually the devs have responded to this in some length on numerous occasions (threads). The design is what it is by deliberate intent due to the scale (time and distance but especially time). The design decision was by GG and, reading between the lines, was not universially popular with the test team.

Now you can agree or disagree with the result (and I don't particularly agree myself), but I don't think that the devs need to "wake up to the idea..." here since it is clear that this is an issue that has gone on (and been discussed) for years.

[pompack]

Kamil:

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack your excellent AAR

"Thanks. But to be honest, I think I am loosing. " (Kamil)

And I don't think you are losing. Your approach with the southern/central emphasis is different from most of the AARs but you are certainly chewing the Russians up right now. Your "attack, attack, attack" strategy is certainly better than a cautious German advance which is sure to lose.

[kirkgregerson]

Lol,

Well I'll call people out if I see it appropriate. Flank attacks are one of the most fundamental concepts in warfare dating back to the earliest periods of mankind.

"If you do not know the field nor day for battle, then the left flank cannot aid the right, nor the right flank aid the left; the front cannot aid the rear, nor the rear aid the front. How much more so when the distant are some tens of kilometres away and the near several kilometres apart? Thus I say victory can be achieved. Even though the enemy is more numerous, they can be forced not to fight."


-Sun Tzu's The Art of War

If any developer or designer would have taken the time to read even a portion The Art of War, they'd know this as it's a central theme throughout his works. Or maybe look at some of the largest defeats or victories for the Romans. Alexander the Great's campaigns as well. For the period of WitE maybe Rommel's campaign in North Africa. Heck, just look at Operation Desert Storm which was basically a feint followed by a left hook flank by 7th Corps.

Maybe the WitE team had a good reason to leave out the advantage factor for a unit getting hit front and flank(s), I can't see it. Has nothing to do with the scale, because in most cases were talking divisions and in all cases were talking about a battle front of 10 miles.

IMO, there's no excuse. If somebody wants to give them one, that's their prerogative. Once again, WitE is a good game, but it can be better and no reason to settle ... is there?

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

If any developer or designer would have taken the time to read even a portion The Art of War

Somehow, I think the chances are high it has been read by most of them. For you to draw the conclusion that they have not taken the time to read it simply because "flanking" is not involved in this game is quite the leap.

I could add more, but I don't want to waste any more of my time or further hi-jack this AAR over ground that has already been covered.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

If any developer or designer would have taken the time to read even a portion The Art of War, they'd know this as it's a central theme throughout his works. Or maybe look at some of the largest defeats or victories for the Romans. Alexander the Great's campaigns as well. For the period of WitE maybe Rommel's campaign in North Africa. Heck, just look at Operation Desert Storm which was basically a feint followed by a left hook flank by 7th Corps.

Maybe the WitE team had a good reason to leave out the advantage factor for a unit getting hit front and flank(s), I can't see it. Has nothing to do with the scale, because in most cases were talking divisions and in all cases were talking about a battle front of 10 miles.

IMO, there's no excuse. If somebody wants to give them one, that's their prerogative. Once again, WitE is a good game, but it can be better and no reason to settle ... is there?

1. Checkerboard should not be seen as any kind of box-defence, as people have pointed out, the units are defending more than their hex through the zocs. It should be seen as a more spread out defensive posture.

2. Any advantages given to flanking units or units attacking a hex from several directions would work against salients and bulges, which were very common on the eastern front, I would say more common than they are in the game.

3. I think you are a bit disrespetctful to the developers of this excellent game. If you look at the bibliography in the manual, I would say they are very well read up on works much more pertinent to the Eastern Front than Sun Tzu.

[KamilS]

Turn 13 - movement

AGN area is finally secure, what accentually might not be good thing. Now, deciding factor in developments of the situation in the north is Encircled's attitude and temperament. I hope for the best but to be honest expect much worse.

To tell the truth my position in the centre was much more disturbing. My panzers are weak, infantry not strong either and there is no gravity point, that I can use to force my opponent to pitched battle on my condition. Overall it doesn't look good.

In the south I am running out of steam as well. Fortunately he is weak there as well, and my drive towards Rostov was successful. Hopefully my tanks won't get beaten and I will have chance to lay my hands on big industrial centre.

Odessa is finally surrounded and I expect to capture it soon.

[KamilS]

centre (13 end)

[KamilS]

south (13 end)

[KamilS]

Odessa (13 end)

[KamilS]

casualties (13 end)

[pompack]

Ah, back to the wars [:)]

I would suggest that you watch the supply length for the units at Rostov and encircling the Stalino group since there are fairly ugly penalties for exceeding 100 mp from railheads; repaired ports can remove the worst penalties. Usually this isn't a problem until mud but things can get nasty quickly then and it takes time to repair the ports.

[KamilS]

pompackI would suggest that you watch the supply length for the units at Rostov and encircling the Stalino group since there are fairly ugly penalties for exceeding 100 mp from railheads; repaired ports can remove the worst penalties. Usually this isn't a problem until mud but things can get nasty quickly then and it takes time to repair the ports.

Yes you are right. I plan to do it, I hope I will.