Helio's Axis AAR (v Cannonfodder Soviet)

[Baelfiin]

Nicely done getting across the Oka.

I think you have a pretty good chance of getting moscow, barring a massive infusion of well trained Reds.

[ComradeP]

veji1: you can't really compare WitP:AE to WitE in terms of unpredictability. In WitP:AE, you have hundreds if not thousands of options of where to land forces or move your ships. That's due to the nature of the game you're playing, with a strong focus on naval warfare. In WitE, the Axis try to move the front from west to east and the Soviets from east to west. There's not an awful lot of room for surprises, as in many cases the targets that offer the most benefits are also fairly clear.

The CV information you get is still a rough estimate and can be misleading, not to mention changed by leader rolls. You can get more information in WitP:AE by recon shelling or - bombing than from counters in WitE.

The difference between modified CV and regular CV seems to have decreased for the Soviets in recent patches and increased for the Axis as well.

Helio: I would be more worried about the state of logistics of the forces north of Moscow than those near Ryazan based on the state of your rail lines. Keep a close eye on their supplies and fuel, you might need to fly supply missions to your mobile units to make sure they don't lose morale in the mud.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

veji1: you can't really compare WitP:AE to WitE in terms of unpredictability. In WitP:AE, you have hundreds if not thousands of options of where to land forces or move your ships. That's due to the nature of the game you're playing, with a strong focus on naval warfare. In WitE, the Axis try to move the front from west to east and the Soviets from east to west. There's not an awful lot of room for surprises, as in many cases the targets that offer the most benefits are also fairly clear.

The CV information you get is still a rough estimate and can be misleading, not to mention changed by leader rolls. You can get more information in WitP:AE by recon shelling or - bombing than from counters in WitE.

The difference between modified CV and regular CV seems to have decreased for the Soviets in recent patches and increased for the Axis as well.

WitP:AE has a much larger parameter space since there is a full-blown naval component and the air war is modeled also with a lot more visible detail. Not to mention the economic side of running the empire if you don't use the historical options. Plus, Japan being very limited in what it can do can't push in every direction simultaneously but has to make choices, which in turn means it also has a lot of options to choose from: India, OZ, NZ, Pearl, yes even West Coast has been tried. So it would make much more sense to compare to a "War in Europe" of perhaps similar detail level, one day.

The tricks you mention in AE are also a matter of concern there, often limited by house-rules. It would be better to address it by code refinements, though. But in general C&C in both games is quite good I also find, and allows to avoid bad surprises quite well. If you don't use these tricks, AE becomes a lot less predictable even if you just reduce the scope to land war in Burma or China. Maybe I am wrong there in my expectations, but I find it weird that I always have a 100% perfect knowledge of the status of my units as supreme commander. There are not mess-ups in the reports, no commanders falsifying returns, and I can see the moral of my soldiers or the fuel situation with perfect accuracy to the digit. In AE this holds true as well, and is in some respects even more gamey if you consider at the leader stats. I suppose often times commanders like Rommel, Guderian or Timoshenko, for that matter, had only a crude knowledge of their own forces, especially if some of them were in poor communication or supply, or cut-off. Nor did the ones assigning and promoting officers look at personal files and compare "Guderian, administration Xx" to ...

I suppose adding a bit more C&C disorder/FOW/errors to unit specs and translating unit properties like moral, experience or leader stats into a "human scale" (excellent, good, poor etc) would sound more reasonable. Ideally the game start would also allow a custom setting where some stats could be randomized within a determinable range. But this kind of "friendly FOW" could already lessen the "subjective(?) problem" of rather high predictability.

[ComradeP]

I suppose adding a bit more C&C disorder/FOW/errors to unit specs and translating unit properties like moral, experience or leader stats into a "human scale" (excellent, good, poor etc) would sound more reasonable.

I generally have more problems with limited FOW on smaller scale games, with a limited timeframe for turns than for divisional scale wargames with weekly turns. Even if reports are initially incorrect, within a couple of days the truth should generally be clear at least to the corps commanders. I consider better than historical C&C to be another abstraction of the IGOUGO system, as the system essentially assumes that everything you do during a turn can technically be considered to take an entire turn or less.

[veji1]

I diddn't mean that WITE should be more like WITP-AE. I used AEs example to underline the fact that its mechanisms and gameplay made for more unpredictability,and therefore a richer gaming experience. The real question (again what I say is only based on avidly reading AARS so feel free to rubbish it) ist how does one make WITE a richer game experience in what is a linear game (Germans push east, than get pushed west...).

[krupp_88mm]

if their was a way to do a same turn execution with this game it would help immensely with operational realism, the turn back and forth is more panzer generalish, also it would be nice if their was no limit on units in hexs but instead maybe the more men the more inefficient with no hard cap of three counters, as it is i think simulating battles like kursk is near impossible you cant stack enough units in a hex to simulate it, and how silly is it that having three units behind a retreating unit causes a rout.. heh, if anything it should prevent a rout unless its a bridge hex or something, completely counter intuitive... also why not let both sides have counters in the same hex,t the germans often advanced into enemy territory in a corridor around 2-10 miles wide, its definitely possible, this is impossible in this game but would be possible if counters could share hexs, maybe just make the ZOC penalty greater for moving through dual occupied hex's, a dual occupied hex could simulate a break through lines where the enemy didnt retreat, for instance a panzer division rushes a russian corps and they both end up in the same hex the corps didnt retreat it just got penetrated, the germans could either continue attacking it to create a bigger breakthrough thereby retreating the corps form the hex, or ignore it and press further behind lines as long as another unit or a fragment or regiment ect can hold the hex control, this business where every successful attack causes a retreat / rout is kind of silly, often divisions where penetrated straight through the middle, successful attacks were most often the ones where the enemy wasn't retreated but passed by with minimal effort, the unit might remain a pain and slow down other advancing forces for a wile it may not retreat at all but hold on and get surrounded or even counter attack if morale is high enough, the game mechanics kind of prevent this currently.

[heliodorus04]

Turn 17 arrived, and it was a very good one for Germany. And I will have to eat some crow, probably, since my attacks seem to have produced the nearly broken Red Army (according to CF).

It looks like either I’ve benefitted from a bug or the design of the partisan attack/rail repair routine was done in a way that really benefits me. You can see from this picture that a partisan took out a hex of rail that supplied everybody east of it, including basically all of AGC.
But for some reason, AGC HQ at Vitebsk was able to spit out an automated rail battalion, which fixed the railroad immediately, and while supply to my tanks is not great around Moscow (buildups and air resupply notwithstanding), infantry supply is definitely normal. Note that I displaced the Partisan already.

The same exact thing happened further to the south of Vyazma.





If this isn’t how the partisan attack/rail repair routine is supposed to work, can someone explain to me what should have happened here? I’m wondering if this isn’t a bug in my favor.

[heliodorus04]

Up in the Leningrad area, I have set up some basic defensive positions around the Valdai hills.

I have also taken the Sviritsa port on Ladoga (SE corner at the Neva River) in order to hopefully help a little bit with a supply situation that the Finns around Ladoga area are going to have to deal with in mud. They’re going to be in bad, bad shape. It’s not like CF can counter-attack there due to the raw strength of the units, but it’s not a good situation.

I am withdrawing a corps worth of good divisions, and 1.Corps HQ, to go somewhere for a winter offensive. The remaining motorized division and panzer division from 4.Panzer Group will remain local for counter-attack purposes. Both are in pretty good shape (except in tanks). My only strategic imperative up in the north this last turn is to consolidate my line, and to attack Soviet strong points just to keep him taking casualties.

I’m pretty worried about what will happen on T18 with the supply situation. my FBD is in Torzhok, with the railhead limit next turn being 1 hex SW of Torzhok, so it’s almost there. I don’t want to pull back now, because he may not attack me on his turn. He’s got a badly mauled army, and I’m relying on him being conservative here (and inexperienced, not knowing how bad the supply situation will be for me next turn).

[heliodorus04]

The Valdai hills are free of Soviets.

[heliodorus04]

I’m not sure how bad supply will be next turn on the NW side of Moscow.

[heliodorus04]

I felt it pretty important to try to maintain a presence, through to snow turns, on the eastern side of the Volga Canal. That’s a supply risk. And I threw up a fort, because I want to hold this into the blizzard if I get no further.

I’m also taking a supply risk trying to hold a presence north of Moscow – that will likely be subject to attacks by him at some point, whether or not it’s next turn. Both those stacks are strong, 2-hex stacks.

Over the long term of the mud and blizzard, north of the Volga reservoir, I doubt CF will have much supply to attack from east to west except around Vysnhy, and again at the Volkhov. I don’t feel much of a threat at the Volkhov because the Finns can hold so much of it, and Novgorod anchors the SW well even for Germans. I don’t worry about east-west through the Valdai because it’s mountainous, which is good even for Germans in defense. So I’ll try to steer any north-south pincer into the gap where I can cut it off from east and west. But I don’t expect much action here.

[heliodorus04]

In the Southern-Moscow area, supply is better.

[heliodorus04]

Across the river may be some problems next turn, but rail & FBD are both in Tula, and nothing should prevent me from withdrawing west of the river next turn if it’s worse than I am planning for. I’ve moved in enough to compose 2 full stacks north of the Oka at the new bridgehead. I intend to continue attacking from this bridgehead to the NW toward Moscow, first clearing a path west to the railroad crossing nearest Kaluga, then if I’m fortunate enough to have strength, moving along the eastern bank of the Moskva. He will have to factor for losing the units south of Moscow and west of the Moskva. I’m not sure what will be achievable in attacking in mud, but I may just use HQ buildup with my 16 remaining MPs on the panzer group that created the bridgehead last turn (/edit: I did use buildup there). Next turn, I can probably use it for the infantry if necessary (that might be my way of launching attacks in mud, but I don’t know if anything works offensively in mud). At least it’s still an impressive looking threat at the Oka now.

Note that I have not moved units south of Ryazan yet.

Nearer Moscow, poor MPs in the motorized divisions meant attacks had to be well-planned. While most succeeded, one unit performed well enough to cost me, winning 3 Held results. I’m most concerned about counter-attacks around Moscow with the big super-stacks he has. Their offensive CVs are only 6 each, but that’s enough with the odds-shift.

I guess all I can say is “we will see” how things go. I’m concerned about the strength he has east of Tula, but not terribly so. Local forces are sufficient to manage the threat.

[heliodorus04]

At Kharkov, the partial pocket started last turn worked out more in my favor than it originally looked:

[heliodorus04]

He left a critical sector of his flank wide open, and it’s an area with little support for rail supply/reinforcement. I’m not really sure why he’s not more staggered along the Torets river, but he’s not, and now I have incentive to be bold going into the first mud turn.

The way I’m looking at it, I have to block basically every hex along the SE side of this pocket along the Torets and Krasnaya river. That’s where he’ll be able to muster forces for attacks. In the north, and along the northeast, screening can be accomplished by regiments and every-other hex.

[heliodorus04]

This is how I did it, and how it turned out, and I believe it’s rock-solid

[heliodorus04]

Though my own supply is seriously compromised for Turn 18, I do not believe CF is in a strong enough position to hurt those units who will be out of supply/strained supply (I forget the lesser term). Moreover, two rail lines are in ideal positions to serve the outer limits over the next two turns, and the Ju-52 fleet is basically all in AGS near D-town now. The rail lines ensure the units on the western edge of the pocket will be sufficiently supplied to attack methodically over mud turns. I just have to hold it closed.

If he doesn’t run, I will continue to try to drive toward the Sea of Azov with 6.Army and 1.Panzer Group. Remember that 3.Panzer Corps will have high supply levels due to HQ buildup last turn, unless they get completely isolated. While my attitude lately is cockey, I don’t want my gameplay commentary to be. I try not to judge CF’s play in it because he can’t defend himself.

He commented to me in our laconic between-turn banter that he thought he isolated the corps down here, and I wonder if he didn’t convert a hex on his turn that didn’t flip before mine. He also did not plan on me firing HQ buildup and making one last sprint. I don’t think that pocket is falling on his last clear turn, but I have no idea what will become of either of us over mud. I hope I seized a good opportunity.

About 3 divisions routed out, but again, I was surprised how many divisions retreated in decent shape. I count about 24 divisions in there, most of whom were good quality units giving me hell at Kharkov. I’m rather proud I turned the worm. CF doesn’t give me much, and I think I play very well to ‘making the best’ of what he gives me. I struggled through Kharkov and got criticized for having the starting OOB of AGS devoted to AGS’s goals. Is it wrong of me to feel vindicated that that criticism, while it looked valid at the time, turned out not to be as bad as it looked? In retrospect, the two SS units had to sit idle at Kursk for two turns to hold the pocket from all the cav he massed, once as regiments and once as divisions, to help hold the pocket closed, and that’s when 48.Panzer got pinned into Kharkov. Last turn they were free, attached to 3.Panzer, and drank from the mana pool (HQ buildup – I’ve been playing a lot of Skyrim lately).

[heliodorus04]

Tula-Ryazan

[heliodorus04]

You can see my rail line leaves a LOT to be desired out here, and if I’m going to get counter-attacked in mud, it will be here. And the southern rail line is 1 hex west of Kharkov, so it will get a little better for 6.Army, less so for the mighy-might-be Italians (all over 51 morale). The Romanians include the cav corps and the mountain corps, but all are largely speed-bumps with how we can expect supply.

And CF is showing Cav here, in the center, and he has better supply there than I, so I’m prepared to fall the heck back, a long way, if required for an attack. The elements of 4.Army in the north and 6.Army in the south can contain any major breakthrough, and that’s why the supply line went South at Bryansk rather than southeast toward Orel: if I’m falling back in the center, I will need my supply line to fall back to, and not have it at risk too far east.

But I have made a point to hammer his cav whenever I have an opportunity, to keep their morale low so they aren’t as fast. Who knows if it has any effect. Soviet cav is snake-like. We hates it forevah!

[heliodorus04]

11.Army had a great turn.