An Occasional AAR: Q-Ball v JAMiAM (No Jam)

[Q-Ball]

I don't feel I have the time to write 2 AARs, on top of the "Death Ride" one I have going with Bletchley Geek. But I thought I would occasionally post on my game with JAMiaM; partly for posterity, mostly to solicit advice, as I expect to need it.

I asked for a game against an opponent who would make me "sweat", so JAM certainly fits the bill. I told him I hope I can give him a game and not get smoked, so we'll see if that happens.

At this point, we are at TURN 6 (My Turn 6; so he has T-7 in his in-box). Here is what happened so far in a nutshell:

AGN: Jam has committed an extra Panzer Corps to the drive on Leningrad; we identified this T-3. At that point, I decided that Leningrad was going to fall, so I am NOT committing alot of extra forces, just the ones that appear close to the city, and the troops up there at start. I hope to delay him until T-12 or so, at which point it is hopefully too late to do much with those Panzers.

Once the city falls, the Panzers should move South for a late summer drive on Moscow, and I will just fall back into the woods.

AGC: JAM had an interesting opening; instead of pocketing Bialystok, he blew most of it away. Interesting. Alot of my units survived, but in very poor shape, or stuck in the swamp.

Speaking of the swamp, JAM has made an extra effort to clean out the Pripet, including using CAV to do so. I had planned to use my own cav out of the swamp to threaten his flanks, but no dice. Nice move by him.

AGS: Lvov pocket, typical frontier battles with fierce fighting, a couple retreated Panzer units, ending in the encirclement and destruction of 15 divisions, on top of the Lvov guys.

Everyone else has been busy building Lvl-2 forts along the Dnepr, and accumulating replacements. It's about as strong a position as I could expect at this point, with forts a couple rows deep. Hopefull, we can delay him 3-4 turns crossing the River.

INDUSTRY MOVES: I will detail the end, but Turn 6 you don't feel pressed...yet.

Leningrad is cleaned-out of Armaments, AFVs, and Vehicles. I am deliberately leaving small factories in the Ukriane, to move big ones. D-Town and Poltava are moved, as are Bryanks/Orzhe-whatever, Z-Town, and I'm starting on Kharkov and Stalino.

Attached is a map, any advice appreciated.

[Flaviusx]

I'm not so sure that abandoning Leningrad too quickly is a good idea. It's going to fall, sure. But if it falls too early that means an entire extra panzer group for the Moscow push.

James can and will get in your face there for most of the summer. He did it to me and I only just barely held on until mud. But I did manage to keep him busy in Leningrad until turn 16 or so, and two panzer groups wasn't quite enough to do the job by Moscow. PG4 only turned up by the Moscow front on turn 17 and caused quite a rumpus, but it was too late.

Had those guys been there even a turn earlier, it might have been game over for the Kremlin.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I'm not so sure that abandoning Leningrad too quickly is a good idea. It's going to fall, sure. But if it falls too early that means an entire extra panzer group for the Moscow push.

James can and will get in your face there for most of the summer. He did it to me and I only just barely held on until mud. But I did manage to keep him busy in Leningrad until turn 16 or so, and two panzer groups wasn't quite enough to do the job by Moscow. PG4 only turned up by the Moscow front on turn 17 and caused quite a rumpus, but it was too late.

Had those guys been there even a turn earlier, it might have been game over for the Kremlin.

I hear you, we'll see. I did fortify the "Leningrad Backdoor" already, so I plan to defend that line.

At the moment, his Panzers in AGN have outrun their supply lines (25+ MPs from rail), but that will clear up pretty shortly, because rail building goes pretty quick up there.

I can use all the help I can get, since I do expect to get smoked.

[gingerbread]

I have been toying with an idea of massing artillery in an Army defending the back door - at least 10 41b Corps Art Reg and 5 regs of 120mm Mortars. An F.R. in the hex can hold a sapper and 2 more artillery. 2 ID's as defenders + 6 more for rotation and reserves. Some Nav Inf (not rifle) as reserves as well. Leader with good Ini & Inf. Fort up Osinovets to enable retreat when the hex falls. Airbases in the lt. forests east of The Volkhov. Possibly commit a 152 field Gun Reg in the F.R. for counter battery. The rules allow for SU commitment up to 6+fort level, that means 2 from F.R. and 9-10 from HQ.

The desired result is that the German Pioneers and high quality Inf get so mauled that they cannot go at it again without resting. So instead of it taking 3 turns to crack the hex, it should take 5 or even 6. It is a pretty heavy investment in ARM, but nothing irreplaceable (well some Nav Inf...) but there is no better spot to put some hurt on the Germans!  Sort of a Stalingrad a year early, and the German artillery and Pioneers are not being used anywhere else.

Care to try it out?

[Flaviusx]

I put in about that much artillery in my back door army and it didn't stop James. I stopped him 3 times in a row from crossing the Neva, but he got through on the fourth attack when my reserve rolls failed. (I had divisions set on reserve here -- so long as one of these showed up, that was enough to stop the crossing.)

However, I like the idea of fortifying Osinovets directly. Back when we were testing this there was a bug that prevented forts from working on ports, so I wasn't able to try this out. (The adjacent hexes could fortify normally.) But given enough time, you could raise it to level 5, and the German might have problems taking that on a one hex frontage. He'd have to clear an urban hex to get a two hex attack on it.

The problem here, of course, is getting the time for Osinovets to reach level 5. You'd probably have to assign a ton of construction assets directly to the FR to get it done.

[gingerbread]

What kind of casualties was James taking? Could the same troops attack two turns in a row or did he rotate?

[Flaviusx]

Trivial losses. This was pissing me off. He was losing maybe 1500 guys on each of these hold results. I was losing practically the same amount in return.

You'd think the butcher's bill on such a massive assault would be higher. It wasn't. He could just keep battering away until my guys ran out of luck.

In general I have found that hold results for the Germans in 1941 in this patch aren't very high. The only way to cause the Germans serious losses is to attack them -- holds alone won't do it.

And when the Germans attack you (and succeed), their exchange rate is north of 5:1.

[gingerbread]

I read in some thread that the 41c ID is better at causing casualties due to the submachine gun squads. That's why I want some Nav Inf as reserves. But your experiences are a bit of a disappointment.

[Richard III]

If two ( Flaviusx & Q Ball ) of the 3 best Soviet players, trying to play a somewhat historic game and attempting to "bleed" the axis while the axis attempts to capture L-Grad ( big prize ) , are getting a 5-1 exchange in the favor of the axis while defending a prepared and heavily supported hex that can only be attacked from one side, then I respectfully submit the CRT-Morale whatever differential needs to be seriously looked at. That`s just too off base.

With those odds ( if that`s the average ?? ) there is again no incentive for the Soviets to defend, if a house rule was in place that would require them to not rail out an agreed amount of Arm. & heavy indus....a big prize for the axis, and a House rules PBEM I might offer....if their was a more reasonable exchange ratio.

The Reds defend Leningrad to the max with all their game skills, and the Axis attacks hard with all their game engine knowledge, and you trust to the Dice Gods...and get an exciting war game.

[BletchleyGeek]

The Osinovets option that Flavius suggest is something worth to try... the next time. Getting two FRs (one in Osinovets and another one in the backdoor hex) on Turn 2 would cost 16 AP's, plus say 3 RR Bdes per FR, would net a whooping 22 AP's. So by turn 3, one could have all these assets in place. But for Q-Ball's present game it's just too late.

German losses on the attack in 1941 are very low, sometimes ridiculously low. Which contrasts when the SMG squads enter the fray with the late 1941 TOEs... I wonder if by pimping MG squads (for both sides) things would become a bit less... ehm, one-sided. And there's the fort reduction rule for 1:1 final odds which benefits the Germans (it's still in the game, I think). As Flavius says, the Axis just needs to keep attacking in echelon until fort levels are eroded and one runs out of luck with reserve rolls. It's a matter of time.

The point is perhaps to delay the Axis assault along the Schlisselbürg - Osinovets axis long enough, so Mud hits just as the Germans get their bridgehead over the Neva.

[Flaviusx]

You don't even need two FRs to pull this off. A single one in Osinovets covers not only the port itself, but the crossing at the Neva itself. I always build a fort in Osinovets. But in testing the bug prevented Osinovets itself from gaining any benefit from the FR.

I just make sure to put a good division with high contruction value on the crossing site. The Red Army does start off with a few of these. You probably also want to drop another such division on Osinovets proper in addition to attaching construction SUs directly to it, because levels 3-5 are super slow to build up. I'm guessing 6 turns minimum for the last 3 levels.

However, you'll need a second FR if you want to cover Kolpino and contest the approaches to the Neva. Not sure if that's worth the investment.

[BletchleyGeek]

It was more about the ability of focusing three RR brigades on the clear hex between Osinovets and Schlisselbürg, but yes, you're right that for achieving Level 3 it's not necessary.

EDIT: Perhaps is better to have that good division fighting it out in the forests and swamps south of the Neva. Just perhaps.

[gingerbread]

So a FR in the crossing hex itself for its 3 attachments is not worth it? It does take up the space of an ID, so reserves better make the roll.

Level 3 is only 200 cp, so doable in one turn. Lvl 4 (1000) and 5 (5000), well if you gather 250 cp (thats 2 ID with 40+ and about 10 RR brigades & Sapper Reg), you could do lv4 in 4 turns, possibly 3 if you get lots of civilians. Lvl 5 is very difficult to reach. Up the force to 350 or even 500 cp (i.e. 1/3 & 1/2 of 1000 respectively) and it is still at least 10 turns and since there is an admin die roll to be made, Vasilevsky is the only one that could do it in 10.

Still, if it makes it possible to hold Leningrad (Sviritsa and approaches would need some TLC as well), it would be worth it. But it is a big if...

[heliodorus04]

If you guys break this fort construction routine worse than you already are, you'll ruin the game.

Soviet strategy already forced the fortification routine to be nerfed because Soviets all build limitless construction and sapper regiments. If you make it infinitely exploitable again, I'm gonna go find another game.

[Flaviusx]

Helio...Leningrad is darn near indefensible. I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about exploiting forts.

All this discussion is being aimed at trying to make the best of a bad situation. Even with these heroic measures the city is almost certainly going to fall.

If anybody has cause for complaint here it is the Soviets.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: gingerbread
Level 3 is only 200 cp, so doable in one turn. Lvl 4 (1000) and 5 (5000), well if you gather 250 cp (thats 2 ID with 40+ and about 10 RR brigades & Sapper Reg), you could do lv4 in 4 turns, possibly 3 if you get lots of civilians. Lvl 5 is very difficult to reach. Up the force to 350 or even 500 cp (i.e. 1/3 & 1/2 of 1000 respectively) and it is still at least 10 turns and since there is an admin die roll to be made, Vasilevsky is the only one that could do it in 10.

Still, if it makes it possible to hold Leningrad (Sviritsa and approaches would need some TLC as well), it would be worth it. But it is a big if...

Hmmm, getting to level 3 is more like, you know, 3 turns

ORIGINAL: Ye Evil and Grotesque Grimoire To Rape the Axis
15.3.2.1. Combat Unit Fort Level Construction

[...]

A unit may never provide more than fifty construction points per turn (after modifications) to the construction of a hex. In addition, a single hex can only gain fifty net construction points of fort level per turn.

For example a hex that currently is at fort level two with fifteen percent towards fort level three constructed, would be limited to building up to no more than fort level three with fifteen percent towards fort level four.

Provided that the hex clear and if you're playing random weather you don't get some mud to muddle up things

I don't have at hand the construction values for a RR Brigade, though. I don't get what you said about "better the reserves makes good his roll".

@Helio: I wonder what do you mean by "breaking" or "gaming" anything. All the ops we're discussing require spending AP's and supplies. While the latter are not a concernt, former really are. This is something the Soviet player can do anywhere on the map, but certainly not everywhere as used to be the case.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

If you guys break this fort construction routine worse than you already are, you'll ruin the game.

Soviet strategy already forced the fortification routine to be nerfed because Soviets all build limitless construction and sapper regiments. If you make it infinitely exploitable again, I'm gonna go find another game.

It is not THAT limitless Helio...

[gingerbread]

For cp contributed by units, read raw cp, i.e. before multiplying with .25, .05 & .01 for lvls 3,4 & 5 respectively. So it's within limits.

Most people understand whole numbers easier than fractions - that's why I chose to multiply the amount needed instead.

But now I see where I went wrong. The time given is to increase 1 level, not to build to that level from scratch.

Edit to add comment regarding reserves:

If there is an F.R. there is only room for 2 ID's and per Flaviusx' experiences , that is not enough to keep the German below 2:1. So the leader should have a high Initiative rating to get reserves to the battle.

[heliodorus04]

Well, when reading the thoughts on creating the perfect level 4 fort in the minimum amount of time, I was alarmed to think it could be done in 4 turns with the proper allocation of a FR and maximal creation/assignment of SUs in the armies related to the FR.  Turns out that's not even possible, so I'm not so alarmed.

I was approaching the discussion as though it were possible to create level 4 forts in 4 turns, basically anywhere on the map.

But as far as the 'gamey' comment on RR Construction SUs/Sappers, I think in the case of RR Construction units, the community hasn't looked back on the 1.04 game to analyze how the fortification sub-routine came to be seen as over-powered: to wit, I always wished we had discussed the creation of those types of SUs, because I think if we'd looked at limiting the amount of those SUs that could be created, we might have found that the fortification system wasn't as out of balance as much as SU creation limits were out of balance. In other words, it's a theory in MY mind at least that the Soviet player community may have actually screwed themselves into the present 1.05 situation by not recognizing the impact of the own SU-creation strategy.

When I talk about gaming something or breaking something, I don't mean to assign moral judgment to someone, I just mean that when you can push one boundary of gameplay very far (like creating SUs), you can break other parts of the game design unintentionally.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
But as far as the 'gamey' comment on RR Construction SUs/Sappers, I think in the case of RR Construction units, the community hasn't looked back on the 1.04 game to analyze how the fortification sub-routine came to be seen as over-powered: to wit, I always wished we had discussed the creation of those types of SUs, because I think if we'd looked at limiting the amount of those SUs that could be created, we might have found that the fortification system wasn't as out of balance as much as SU creation limits were out of balance. In other words, it's a theory in MY mind at least that the Soviet player community may have actually screwed themselves into the present 1.05 situation by not recognizing the impact of the own SU-creation strategy.

I don't think anybody has "screwed" himself (or herself) into 1.05 on the topic of forts, HQ buildup, NM or whatever. Joel and the rest of the 2by3 crew saw what was going on and they didn't like it. I've got no problem with these changes, if anything they make the game more interesting. And I sincerely do think that 1.05 is far from being a "Frontoviki Whack-A-Mole" for the Axis. At least I have the hope it won't be in 1943 [:D]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
When I talk about gaming something or breaking something, I don't mean to assign moral judgment to someone, I just mean that when you can push one boundary of gameplay very far (like creating SUs), you can break other parts of the game design unintentionally.

Well, that's the joy of playing wargames. You get to meet a lot of very smart people thinking their minds out trying to find a winning strategy. If I were a game designer I'd be delighted, as long as they don't start yelling at me, because the discussion is good feedback on how "solid" are the rules against "gaming" [;)]