Death Ride to Russia: Q-Ball (Axis) v smokindave(Sov). 1.05 beta

[Klydon]

I think I agree with putting them in reserve. You have 3 issues to deal with in terms of air frames, moral and experience. Putting them in reserve at least will get the moral recovered to a point and cut down on airframe wastage by avoiding the blizzard in Russia. I would certainly leave them out through December and monitor the progress. I would be tempted to leave them out in Feb as well, but would look to start bringing the better units back in March for possible use/help during snow, etc.

The other thing to look at as well is what do you do with some of your airbases during blizzard? I would look to stash them someplace out of the weather if you can swing it to cut down on their attrition.

[Q-Ball]

Many of my airbases are now empty. For the moment, they are on "Fort Maintenence" duties; keeping forts from degrading. But I will stash them back to Poland during the Snow. No reason to keep ground crews outside when there are no planes!

I will keep my Fighters active, though.

[Ketza]

I found the Luftwaffe to be very helpful during the Soviet winter offensive. There were many battles it turned the tide in my favor and I think my opponent was surprised I was using it as the latest trend was to send it to the reserve. It also showed up during some very important counterattacks which helped save an army that was being cutoff.

[Q-Ball]

Ketza, I would like to use the Luftwaffe, and I have found it handy in Blizzard. But I have to weigh that against the need to get it up to shape for the Summer. It's cooked. They need to sit for a few weeks and re-gain strength.

T19 and T20 quick update:

B-G attacked my units near Voroshilovgrad, that were in the RED. He managed to push one back, and I retreated another hex to get closer to supplies. Between the retreats and new RR builds, I should be OK next turn. Hate having units in the RED, though.

Other than that, I am digging furiously, trying to get as many forts built as possible before Winter. I want at least 2 rows, maybe 3 deep. I am short in a couple places, but just don't have the units to really close the gap.

I am building a strategic reserve of Infantry (now 4 divisions, not including the high-morale ones I REALLY want to save for the winter). The Finns are coming out to play, but I am leaving a few behind to keep morale up.

That's it for this update. The RED ARMY is up to 4.279 mil this turn; at that rate, they should start the winter at around 4.6 mil. Not huge, but good enough to cause serious trouble.

[stone10]

How many factories did you destroy by the end of summer?

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: stone10

How many factories did you destroy by the end of summer?

50 Armament and 22 Vehicle; that's about 13.5% of Armament production. I also destroyed some HI, but didn't bother to track that.

I also destroyed all the Aircraft factories in the City of Moscow; that puts a dent in Pe-2 production most notably


T-22: First Turn of Snow in 1941:

I had not posted any thoughts or plan before regarding what I was doing in the Snow.

The main decision is how far you really push it. Do you attempt a major offensive, with encirclements, or do you mostly just attack targets of opportunity? I decided on the latter. Hopefully, I am not playing too conservatively.

My thinking is that by now B-G has reserve armies he can use (I have spotted troops concentrations which I think are a couple of those), so a big breakout might get me bogged down. Though SNOW is 3 turns, you really need that last turn to set-up your defensive preparations, so you really only have 2 turns. The SNOW itself limits Panzer mobility.

I have also spent the last few turns building multiple layers of trench in many areas; moving everyone forward would expose all that work to DECAY, and I need forts if I am to survive this winter. In fact, more forts than I have built anyway.

The other factors were strength: B-G has done a good job with his defensive prep, leaving no obvious openings. There is nothing I could take that I wouldn't lose immediately in Winter. I don't want to expend too many tanks, and let's not forget I have, right now, ZERO air support in the Soviet Union. All bombers are back in Germany.

So, I decided on a "Lay-up" plan.

THE PLAN:

The plan basically is simple: Punch the Red Army in the nose, and scurry back to our forts.

I only launched very high probability attacks with high visible CV odds, and used almost all Deliberate, except as follow-ups on already beaten units where Hasty attacks almost always work. I often attacked the unit in front, leaving enough MPs to get back to a Fort so it didn't decay on me. I only advanced a hex or two, if that.

The ground I am taking and clearing, I plan to immediately give-up on the first Blizzard turn. To that extent, it will help thwart Soviet attacks. There is no way I going to attempt to defend open ground up front. That is suicidal!

I do have some units exposed to counterattack this turn, but I would rather the Soviets expend energy now than 3 turns from now, if that's possible.

I think this turn was successful in causing casulaties. We routed a total of 42 Soviet units; that's a very high number, and I asked B-G why he thought that was. A couple items:

1. New MORALE rules; Red Army has lower morale
2. With all the FORT ZONES he built, I think B-G has left alot of crappy leaders in place.
3. My use of DELIBERATE attacks this turn, and high-odds attacks
4. STACKS: In a few cases, they routed because they didn't have an easy retreat path

I hope it's #1, because that will also blunt the Blizzard campaign.

RED ARMY strength right now stands at 4.37 mil. I project he enters Blizzard at about 4.5 mil.

[ComradeP]

1. New MORALE rules; Red Army has lower morale

I have no idea why, but this argument keeps popping up, also in some tester reports, even though it's untrue, as can be seen with even a cursory glance at what the actual morale changes were.

The Soviets used to have a national morale of 40 in 1941, now they start at 50 and will lose 1 point each month, which still means they're at 44 in December, 4 points above the previous maximum. Cavalry and mountain divisions (and maybe the airborne brigades too, not entirely sure) also get another +5 to their national morale, so theoretically their national morale in June 1941 is 15 points above where it was in previous versions.

One of the problems seems to be that some Soviet reinforcement units have abysmal morale (~35-40), which is something that should probably be fixed/adjusted to the national morale at the time.

Maybe the players notice that they don't get morale for all refitting units, but placing the entire Soviet army on refit to get their morale to 50 was an exceptionally gamey strategy, so I'm glad it's gone. It has been more or less gone for a while now in any case.

[Flaviusx]

It keeps popping up because it is true. Morale is markedly lower in this patch as a practical matter.

Pretty sure the old morale was set to 45, btw. Not 40.

More importantly, German morale is significantly higher. So the net difference is very substantial and a large part of the reason casualty ratios are also higher now.

[ComradeP]

It keeps popping up because it is true. Morale is markedly lower in this patch as a practical matter.

I have yet to see you, or anyone else, present evidence that it is in fact true, or evidence proving that the changes I mentioned didn't actually happen.

Pretty sure the old morale was set to 45, btw. Not 40.

Not according to the manual.

More importantly, German morale is significantly higher. So the net difference is very substantial and a large part of the reason casualty ratios are also higher now.

How is all German morale "significantly higher"? German regular infantry morale doesn't get any bonuses, it's the same as always. German mobile unit corrected national morale is now 85, which doesn't have an effect to the units at 90, only on the units below 86 morale. As such, the Germans have a bit more mobility, but (again) I have yet to see evidence that infantry morale is somehow higher than before, as there's nothing in the changelist that suggests it is.

Regardless, those are two separate things, German and Soviet national morale, so even if German morale would be higher for all units, which is something I don't believe in as there's nothing in the changelist supporting that, Soviet national morale would, quite simply, still be higher than before no matter how you spin it.

Since 1.04, I haven't seen a truly significant increase in casualty ratios.

Also: the high casualties are probably caused by most reinforcement divisions having 30 experience elements, which take months to get into any kind of shape due to the slow 1 experience point per turn increase.

Bottom line: if you don't believe me, just check the editor. You'll see that average Soviet reinforcement morale for Rifle formations is about 40, quite likely to increase by a couple of points due to being below the national morale before the unit gets to the frontline, even without refitting the unit. You'll also see the low ground element experience, which translate to higher casualties. You'll also see that the Soviets even get some nice 60 morale Rifle divisions.

Besides: all units that start on the map still use the same formula for morale/experience that they used at release, as far as I know.

The morale isn't the problem for the Soviets, the low experience is.

[stone10]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: stone10

How many factories did you destroy by the end of summer?

50 Armament and 22 Vehicle; that's about 13.5% of Armament production. I also destroyed some HI, but didn't bother to track that.

I also destroyed all the Aircraft factories in the City of Moscow; that puts a dent in Pe-2 production most notably

What is the moral of your armor & motorized units ?

[Flaviusx]

Pieter: please explain the higher casualty ratios post patch. My answer: morale. Your answer?

And yes, they are higher. Upwards of 5:1 now post patch. This isn't just my imagination, James will confirm it. And I think most of these AARs will do so as well.

[ComradeP]

The answer can't be morale for the very simple reason that national morale is higher than before and that the poor experience causes more casualties, together with somewhat higher Axis mobile unit morale for some units.

Look, you don't have to believe what I'm saying, but in that case I'll ask you to do one simple thing which will take you less than 5 minutes: open the editor and look at the morale of most of the arriving Rifle divisions, keeping in mind that those below 40-something will generally gain morale before they get to the front due to being below the national morale. Look at the average experience, which is generally in the 30's and is probably the main problem.

Again: morale can't be the explanation, it's impossible.

I'm not seeing a significant increase in casualties compared to post-1.04 versions. The average reasonably good Axis attack still results in about 2000-2500 Soviet losses (killed and 1/2 damaged), which is just like it always was. I'm seeing some 9000 casualty results for full stacks too, but those might very well be caused by the AI being in Aryan Supermen mode. Those results are rare and still only come down to about 3000 losses per division.

You've said yourself that on average the Soviet armed forces are growing in your game against James. Your average casualties are about 160.000 per turn, including the casualties from the opening disasters, which is something the initial pool+manpower production+efficiency measures/downsizing TOE's can handle just fine for the moment.

Your Soviet army will number around 5 million men by the blizzard, which is a perfectly acceptable size, yet you feel casualties have somehow increased significantly. There's a rather large disconnect between the shape of your OOB and what you imply, namely that casualties are significantly higher.

[ComradeP]

Edit: Nevermind, this only works when the enemy hasn't launched any attacks.

[Flaviusx]

Pieter, I don't believe you. [:)] It's morale. Soviet morale is lower now than before, and German morale is higher. It just is. You're just not seeing the dynamic in play now. The Germans are more mobile; they make more attacks; they get more morale; and are taking less losses doing so than ever before thanks to the way this ratchets up. The opposite effect is going on with the Soviets.

You don't get this because you won't see it playing the AI. This is what happens when you play a human, who will press the thing to the limit.

But don't take my word for it. Let's ask our veteran PBEMers like Q-ball here. How do you think your morale and casualty ration are now compared to earlier versions?

[ComradeP]

As I've said before, games against the AI still use the same combat engine as those against a human, so for similar battles, you still get similar losses.

You still haven't provided evidence for your statement that morale is lower, and the documentation, the changelist and the in-game situation all show that your statement is incorrect. However, feel free to believe what you want.

As to humans pressing things to the limit: that depends on a lot of things. If you look at Andy's game vs. himself in the tester forum, he only had about 4 million men by the blizzard. You will have about 5 million (and have suffered lower losses than Bletchley Geek), partially due to the problems with part of the Soviet manpower production now being fixed. James' Axis are going to come close to historical KIA's, they'll probably be somewhat higher in the end.

Also: I'm not sure what you're basing your statement on that the Germans now make more attacks, considering that prior to your recent PBEM's, according to what you posted you were also mostly playing against the AI, so I'm not sure what you're comparing the current situation to.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

How do you think your morale and casualty ration are now compared to earlier versions?

My viewpoint is admittedly limited; I have only played 4 PBEMs, it's just that they ones I have played I have always done an AAR, so they are pretty well documented. But here is my take vs. my game against Tarhunnas.

I think the Combat casualty ratio is about the same, though I have noticed a divergence in the last couple turns of combat.

Combat Ratios vs. Game w Tarhunnas:

The Top Line numbers (below) look like I am getting a better ratio. The Russians lost about the same number of casualties, and the Axis suffered almost 200K LESS. But if you look beyond that, I think the Combat Ratios are about the same.

The big delta is in POWs; I have captured alot more in this game than Tarhunnas did against me. There are many reasons why, not least because I ran more as Soviets than B-G did early, but net effect is that in this game I have pocketed more units than Tarhunnas did.

There has also been alot less actual combat fighting; Tarhunnas pushed his guys to the end in his game, and I ran the Wehrmacht very gently, IMO. He burned out all his tanks, I didn't.

I think you have to exclude POWs in Combat Ratios, because POWs are a function not of Combat Results, and Firing, but maneuver. My worst combat result was against 12th Panzer, but not because it's morale was low, but because it was surrounded. Same for the Soviets. Changing experience and morale rules should have little to no effect on POWs, except as a by-product of maneuver. That's it.

Excluding POWs, the ratios are about the same: Vs. Tarhunnas, 2.17 to 1, and against B-G, 2.24 to 1. Anecdotely, it feels the same.

The last couple turns have seen a divergence; I have acheived closer to 5 to 1. Is this due to a change in the Red Army? Getting to 2nd line cadres? Is B-G putting bad units on the front too willingly? Is if a function of the types of attacks I am doing (very low risk ones, as I'm ONLY trying to up the Red Army body count)?

I personally don't think it needs tweaking. I am trying to stay side-neutral, as I like to play Soviets more than Germans actually, and my next game will be as Soviet. But I think, so far, the balance feels right. We need to get further to see how it plays out. So I think the GAME is good.

Now, if we are trying to model closer to HISTORY, it's not quite there, but you can argue vs. History that the Germans need more help. The Germans were more depleted than I am into winter, particularly in tanks. But per Glantz, the Red Army was down to 2.8 mil men in Q4 of '41; at that number in-game, it would be a runaway. The game doesn't sufficiently model logistical limits, so an actual 2.8 mil count would be a disaster for the Soviets in the game. On the other side, I don't see the Germans getting 3,000 tanks together for Blau in-game, if they press as hard as they actually did for Moscow. So HISTORICALLY, things are off, but maybe that's OK if the game feels balanced.

T-23: Turn 2 of Snow

Back to the war......we are focusing on running-up the Red Army body count, while at the same time preparing for Winter.

This turn, I am sending some key units back to Germany, like GD Mot (99 morale), and 90+ morale infantry, and 8th Panzer, which has a morale of 95. I need some units for my 1942 Schwerpunkt; I need to resist the temptation to touch these guys.

I continued straight-ahead attacks, and attached some screenshots of what I hope to accomplish this Snow. It's all about hitting Red Army formations so they are depleted come Blizzard, and creating a 1-2 hex "Buffer" that I can cede the first turn of Blizzard to limit attacks. That's pretty much it.

I am creating alot of FORT ZONES, but not for digging, but to prevent fort decay, as I just don't have enough units to cover all my forts, and at any rate, I would rather keep a 1000-man Fort Zone in the open than a 10,000 man HQ. I just have to make sure I pick them up before the Russians are close, as I don't need to give him cheap POWs either. I expect to lose a couple in Blizzard, but hopefully not more than that.

OOB Numbers:

My German OOB hangs around 3.4 mil, with 2000 tanks. The Soviet one is what I am really watching.

Last turn, we finished at 4.37 mil. Imagine my surprise when I opened the turn, and the Soviets were up almost 200,000! Yikes!

I loaded a game from Soviet side, and didn't realize how much the Red Army gets during Snow; something like 200,000 Siberians, about 15 full Rifle Divisions and more, arrives from the east. That's a big boost!

I am revising the Projected Soviet OOB come Blizzard; I expect they'll start around 4.7 mil. That would be 300,000 less than my game vs. Tarhunnas (almost exactly the difference in POWs), but still plenty to cause me grief.

Not looking forward to winter.....

AIR WAR: Finally the Luftwaffe is getting some licks in. I should have pulled my bombers sooner, because I haven't noticed a big drop in my capability, but now that all my airforce is just high-quality fighter pilots, we are doing a number on the Red Air Force. This is how it should be!

Any reason that B-G might be bombing all my HQs? I have noticed this for awhile now. Maybe it's to limit supplies or kill leaders, though the Germans have some depth in good leadership. Anyone have a guess? (Don't tell me a specific reason if B-G posted one).

Just curious.

[Klydon]

You are probably on to the reasons why for bombing HQ's, although my point would be it is a bit late for that if he is going for the logistics aspect of things. Is he bombing HQ's in general or is he specifically after HQ's that are known to have good leaders? Also, I would think bombing Panzer HQ's would be more productive and meaningful than bombing other HQ's. I have seen some players mention they like to bomb HQ's for the shot at leaders and damage it does against logistics.

Also, if you got guys that are 33% ToE now, I would consider pulling them back far enough to the rail head and try some refit action to make them worth something or they are just going to get creamed come blizzard.

[Flaviusx]

After reviewing my losses in my game with James, I'm showing well above 5:1 casualty ratios until the mud hits. Even excluding POWs (which is a dubious caveat) I'm still seeing this.

I suspect you're including attrition losses here, somehow, Q-ball, not raw combat losses. On many turns attrition losses for the German will actually exceed their combat losses and make the overall figures look closer than they really are so far as combat is concerned.

[Q-Ball]

Those global figures comparing the games does include attrition. No way to separate that out, without manually calculating each turn, combat by combat, which is a pain. It would help if there is an export feature for that data to Excel.

That must mean the ratio of Attrition losses is less than 2 to 1 in the German's favor, in order to drag down a high ratio from Combat.

[Flaviusx]

An export feature to excel would be amazing. I love this idea. Not sure if this is doable or easy, though.