Helio (Axis) AAR vs Pelton (Sov)

[heliodorus04]

You can see that infantry is done moving. A little bit of motorized element positioning is done to give me an idea what my capabilities are once we start moving through enemy territory. My prospects are weak, and that’s expected when you strip AGC of two full panzer corps. The two panzer groups are effectively the strength of only one. Given this constraint, I’m really only interested in making a drive on the land bridge. I want my momentum to carry me toward the boundary with AGN. The lower Dnepr is not a high priority. I would rather take Vellikie Luki than Gomel. We shall simply have to wait and see what the Soviet does. When you do what I have done, you do not have the luxury of blitzkrieg in the center. You take what he gives you. Obviously this may have future impact on AGS and the Kiev effort. It’s only turn 2, and I have a very “Take what he gives you” mentality in both the center and the south at this point.

I focused solely on getting across the Berezina at Borisov, with some MPs spent to check out (and then clear out) the units that could threaten supply from the north. I will use another motorized broken down to cover the southern edge. It is obvious to me that Pelton wants to use airborne and SEC, with their high morale, to punch at supply lines and I just can’t let him have that opportunity. I make it a big priority to avoid over-burdened supply lines in these first several turns.

This leads to the dilemma of Mogilev. Is it worth getting a panzercorps isolated or near-isolated to fix Mogilev’s 3 Arm/3 Hvy down? I’m debating that still. The opportunity has only presented itself now that the other units have spent their full MPs. I can only barely cover the supply line with ZOCs… I decide to do it, leaving a cavity to hopefully hold him off in the north due to movement restrictions, and in the south, protecting the supply line reasonably well, though he can isolate 39.Panzercorps quite possibly.

Again, airbases take a big leap forward in the hopes that in T3, no movement will be necessary to accomplish all missions. I had enough unflown bombers that I dropped 200 tons of fuel to 47.Panzercorps, which lies across the Berezina. No point flying fuel to 39.Panzercorps (3.PzGrp) because if he wants to isolate them (assuming he can, which I can’t say for sure) they’ll be isolated. I’m looking at this ending as setting up a rescue for T3, and closing gap with the landbridge if movement allows.

At the last second, while looking at the screenshot below, I decide to spend 3 AP on 20 Motorized to fill it with 3 SUs (pioneer, jagdpanzer, MG battalion). He may be tempted to hit that one unit (though I can’t recall if you can evacuate factories if Germans start the turn next to it, even if later kicked out – I’m sure one of you will remind me). Motorized divisions need punch anyway, so this will be a fighting division now.

[heliodorus04]

Here is the ending of AGC, with not much changing either north or southwest of this.

[heliodorus04]

Again, I broke a motorized into regiments. It might possibly be wasting some efficiency, I agree and understand. But in the gap around Minsk, I have to prevent any unexpected ZOCs from really tweaking my supply to the Panzercorps. I also need to be aware that I can have mud in this game. I believe I have developed good ‘random weather’ habits against the AI (with it having 119/119 morale and logistics).

In the south, it’s the ZOC defense that I ‘lovingly’ refer to as “Nato 1986” (and for those of you who do not know, I was an M1 & M1A1 crewman in the Fulda Gap from 1988 to 1990 with 3/11 ACR – you’re welcome Germany!). It’s not as dense as I thought earlier.

My chief thought as the turn commences is what to do with my remaining 33 Admin Points. Probably my ‘favorite’ army in the game is 11.Army – I have completely no idea why, other than I like purple. I’ve already swapped out the Army commander for Heinrici, and I will want to get the Romanians out of the army entirely. There’s a tremendous amount of APs to be spent fixing the SU situation throughout the south, including Romanian armies. But since I play the AI at 400% Admin setting, I have to remember that routinely spending 250 Admin per turn was not necessarily good prep for a human even at this setting. Also, 46.Panzercorps is going to have to be incorporated somewhere, and I have a strong mind to incorporate it into 11.Army, because a panzer element in the south can surprise (maybe not Pelton, since he’s tried everything). Ultimately, I decide that incorporating the panzercorps is the most important, if the distances work out. Otherwise it’s removing Romanian divisions.

[heliodorus04]

Stalin purges Southwestern Front NKVD officers… Romanian cav on the hunt!

[heliodorus04]

I’ve gone back and forth moving and fighting on each flank of AGS.

I’m concerned with shielding my rail line from pillagers. Pelton knows the importance of defending the mountains there. But I can only get 5 or so hexes of rail (even doubled-up as I am), so it’s T3 that requires me to clear the bend north toward Proskurov.

In the end, my AGS move was sub-optimal, perhaps even a bit of a shit-show. I had a panzer division fail in a deliberate attack to break the Stalin line west of Zhitomir, against a Rifle division that I knew was strong, and had already (barely) retreated from a 46.Panzercorps 3-SHA. Sigh. That was my Vienna for this turn, and I failed to take it. 48.Panzercorps and the bits of 1.Panzergroup ensure that if he stays in my planned rail line southwest of Vinnitsa, it’s going to cost him an encirclement. I’m disappointed that I couldn’t encircle this turn, but I set a good path for infantry.

By the way, 11.Army walked on their own penises this turn, which apparently slowed them down a LOT. Heinrici has his fucking work cut out for him.

[heliodorus04]

Here is how it looked when everyone was done.

[heliodorus04]

I don’t like it much, but it has potential. I generally can swing a few Buildups on Turn 4, from previous experience, and setting at least one up next turn is a goal of mine. I’m not a very big buildup player, though, which is one of the weaknesses I have.

AP Expenditures:
8 AP to put 57.Panzercorps into 4.PzGrp. It’s not necessarily something that ‘must’ be done on T2. For example, I had stocks of 411 fuel prior to moving the HQ, so it would have had ‘normal’ (mid 20s) movement to the motorized units. It’s more about combat die rolls for me right now, and the fact that every efficiency gain acquired in pursuit of Leningrad can be cashed in at the Valdai or Lodynoe Pole or perhaps Moscow.

11 AP to put Model in charge of 1.Corps

24 AP to put Heinrici in charge of 11.Army, who leaves 43.Corps (at Brest Litovsk) of 4.Army, replaced by Laux at 8/6/6/6 and 3/6. Good replacement! I believe a strong 11.Army creates a different offensive capability, and this is a good place to use my admin bonus early.
1 AP to move SU to 38.Corps

3 AP to move Su to 42.Corps (9.Army) from various sources. Closing Bialystok pocket.

4 AP (failed die roll) to move 106 Inf to 20.Corps (9 Army) from the over-CP 42.Corps. Note that I see 106 Inf has 70 morale, so I set its TOE to 85. Note that this is the first time I’ve failed an Admin roll. Good to know it happens.

1 AP to move pioneer out of RHG command (to OKH)

4 AP to move 4 construction into the RHG command

2 AP to move 267 Inf to 42.Corps (4.Army) from 14.Panzer.

3 AP (failed roll) to move 18.Motorized into 4.PzrGrp (a hedge against SEC/airborne interruption of supply in the gap between 16.Army and 4.PzrGrp).

3 AP to move 3 Motorized into 57.Panzercorps. While this is an obvious efficiency mistake (poor attention to my supply line in moving 4.PzGrp), this move is to ensure two combats can occur out of Ostrov without dual-command penalties.

3 AP to move the 3 regiments of 14 Motorized into 3.PzGrp, because the original HQ moved out of range (14 Mot is holding the supply line east of Minsk). Also, inefficiency on my part not doing it before the breakdown, though cost likely only different by 1 AP. Again, these APs are tremendously important lubrications on the movement engine. Hopefully you’re starting to see it in the AP expenditures notes.

4 AP (failed roll) to move 255 Infantry into AGS

1 AP general SU movement (pioneers up, usually)

2 AP to move 13 Panzer into 48.Panzercorps (from 3.Panzercorps) as a movement-based switch.

7 AP (failed roll) to move 57 Infantry into 29.Corps (6.Army) from 48.Panzercorps. That missed roll was costly. I bet if 48.Panzercorps had ditched the infantry first (bringing its CP down to 6) then moving in13 Panzer, the roll would have succeeded. Note to self: un-load units, then load units. Down to 19 AP, which means I’m getting to the put-up-or-shut-up point for 46.Panzercorps (2.PzGrp) in the south. Even if you’re only likely to pay half the cost, you still need the full amount of APs to even see the HQ to which you switch.

7 AP (failed roll again!) to move 10 Panzer (or was it 16 Panzer) into 46.Panzercorps. The failed roll affected no doubt by the absence of Army-level backup. I rationalized moving the divisions before the corps because the corps has 500 tons of fuel, and that’s awesome. 12 AP remain. Better anticipation of command juggling is necessary on my part. This was essential because I was conducting a 3-SHA against the lynchpin defender (a 5-8 Tank div) on the Yuzhny Bug northwest of Vinnitsa (which succeeded at 4.3-to-1 odds).

2 AP for SU movement into 46.Panzercorps (from general sources)

1 AP to move 105 Infantry into 5.Corps (3.PzGrp) from 9.Army. It had outrun its parent, the over-stocked 42.Corps tasked with closing the Bialystok pocket).

2 AP to move 269 Infantry into 18.Army (from a panzercorps in 4.PzGrp). Its parent had long out-run it, and 18.Army was close and under CP.

1 AP to move 129 Infantry from the over-stocked 42.Corps (9.Army at Bialystok) into 3.PzGrp. It has 69 morale, too, yuk! So I lower its TOE and mentally prepare it for regiment-sized flank security, but who knows.

2 AP to move 167 Infantry into 5.Corps (3.PzGrp) from a panzercorps in 2.PzGrp. Parent had out-run it by a good bit. Now 5.Corps is a hammer of 3.PzGrp. Next turn I may need to upgrade its commander, as it now has 4 divisions.

I end the turn with 4 APs. Of my 4 reinforcing divisions, all are on railroad lines heading toward Riga, to be decided upon later.

I was happy with AGN/AGC, and disappointed with AGS. But I think the AGC penetration was an over-riding success for the turn operationally (given their short-handed status), bolstered by smooth achievement of my T2 goals in AGN. I also got the Mogilev industry isolated (Grabthar willing).

[timmyab]

Looking pretty good overall.
I agree almost entirely with your summary of best Axis strategy in the North.
The one thing you didn't mention is the Malta river and the marshes to the West of it which can be made extremely annoying for 1st pz group.Paras in this area (which are still very reluctant to rout) combined with a strong stack at Ostrov should stop 1st pz group crossing on turn 2.I usually put something in the fort in front of Ostrov and sometimes the woods to the West as well.

Good idea to reinforce 20th mot.The one thing I would point out here is that you should have flown fuel into 39th pz corps HQ.As long as it's encircled with the rest of the corps it will still distribute the fuel during you next logistics phase.

I wouldn't be too disappointed in the South.I'd say it's about par against a strong forward defense.

[notenome]

I have to say I quite liked Pelton's defense in the center this turn. Also there's a strong chance your spearhead's going to get cut off next turn. As you can see it only requires a move to occupy one enemy hex on either side. That's what I would do.

[Seminole]

I have to say I quite liked Pelton's defense in the center this turn. Also there's a strong chance your spearhead's going to get cut off next turn. As you can see it only requires a move to occupy one enemy hex on either side. That's what I would do.

Definitely a crapshoot.
Movement cost for the NW unit would be 3 (hexes) + 1 (river) + 5 (if morale <41), whereas it's unlikely MP is higher than 8. There are a few Soviet units with morale over 40 (some NKVD and SW Front units).
Helio is doing a lot of units stacking. What's the rationale? Soviets can't hit back for **** in the opening month, except maybe some armor/mech units in SW Front. Better to leverage EZOC movement costs than stack units during these opening plunges.

[heliodorus04]

I'm not sure what you mean by unit stacking, but I assume you mean the bunching up around 6. and 17.Armies, maybe also the stacks around Minsk. At Minsk, it's HQs and airfields under those (look at the CVs). In the South, it's simply a matter of everyone having the same movement potential. I don't spend a lot of energy converting the area between Rovno and Zhitomir. I follow the paths the panzers leave me for faster eastward movement. If you mean something else, let me know.

I definitely took a conscious risk last turn at Mogilev, but I figured that corps would have poor MPs regardless, and also that if surrounded, 2.PzGrp would certainly make short work of the enemy, and natural consolidation of the land bridge approach would ensue whether or not I'm surrounded.

[notenome]

I go back and forth in regards to stacks. Stacking greatly increases losses from air bombardment, for example. These early 41 stacks are great for that because a) they have a lot of undamaged elements b) the luftwaffe is far behind 3) they aren't in forts 4)they are often in clear terrain. Whenever I spot panzers gasing behind the front I'll hit them mercilessly, disrupting and damaging hundreds of elements. Late 41, especially if you run the puppies hard, triple stacks become vulnerable if the Soviets can get enough frontage.

[Seminole]

I'm not sure what you mean by unit stacking, but I assume you mean the bunching up around 6. and 17.Armies, maybe also the stacks around Minsk. At Minsk, it's HQs and airfields under those (look at the CVs).

I see, nevermind. [:)]

[heliodorus04]

double-post (see below)

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: notenome

I go back and forth in regards to stacks. Stacking greatly increases losses from air bombardment, for example. These early 41 stacks are great for that because a) they have a lot of undamaged elements b) the luftwaffe is far behind 3) they aren't in forts 4)they are often in clear terrain. Whenever I spot panzers gasing behind the front I'll hit them mercilessly, disrupting and damaging hundreds of elements. Late 41, especially if you run the puppies hard, triple stacks become vulnerable if the Soviets can get enough frontage.

Open question about intentions versus capabilities in the engine:
I would have never thought of empty HQ muling. It's just outside my imagination level. Even if I had thought of it, I probably wouldn't have employed it, because I try to play within the intended capabilities of a game. Even back to my 2nd Edition D&D days, I frowned on min/maxing, and I still do, because it undermines the spirit of sportsmanship as I perceive and practice it . I frowned on muling, and I frowned on factory raiding, and I frowned on Army Airbase fuel muling.

That's my personal ethics, like obeying traffic laws when I'm on my bicycle. Abuse of systems breeds contempt for system and abuser alike, and contributes to further abuse.

I think the War in the East air war engine is easily measurable as favoring Soviet quantity over German quality, and it's a snowball that slowly builds and can be wielded too easily in favor of the Soviet side (which I already feel has tremendous systemic advantages in its gameplay). When I have played against Soviets who bomb furiously in 1941, I have objected to the tactic. When I played Soviet, I did not bomb indiscriminately, but only for support of planned ground attacks.

If the Soviet player wants to min max every advantage the game engine gives him, I see little, if any point playing a game like that. I think the foreknowledge that the Soviets have hordes of Aircraft to burn in the hands of players who orchestrate Overlord style strategic and tactical bombing turn after turn after turn, are abusing the capabilities of the air war engine, and violating the spirit of fair play. Certainly reasonable people can disagree on that and on a number of assertions/generalizations I'm making.

It's the kind of thing that, like empty HQ muling, and coordinated 1941 airborne pocket breaking, would have left me to leave the game in frustration that the designers didn't have more foresight to code against the abusive nature of competitive gaming. I like to play the game. I don't like to have to invent counters to strategems that are so 'outside the box' that they border on exploitative.

Yes, I practice Lvov, and that is exactly the counter example to my high-horse-edness. One person's rationalization is another person's transparently self-serving bias. That's why I say this post is a discussion. I do not mean this personally against anyone or any side or any strategem. It's just that I like to play the KIND of gamer who doesn't seek to rules-lawyer, who is seeking fun experience, not a successful outcome.

The only reason I'm playing a person again is because it's Pelton, a person I know will help give me the kind of game I will enjoy, as in my Admin bonus.

[Walloc]

Hi Helio,

I agree with much of what u say about what u say in regards to playing games. That said it seem to me that on some area's that you are stuck in the past. How things use to be and arent necesarrily are any more. I've been following Terje's AAR closely. For ease I just tallied air losses on the latest page of his AAR this is in late 43 so we not talking I-15s any more. Whether this last page is giving an accurate picture is ofc debatelbe, but from following this AAR closely so i dont think its totally out of whack tho I think it might be a bit. Reason to use this, i could be wrong but it seems neither player has been paying particular attention to airwarfare but mostly just played as is.
Losses are 167 german AC lost, 3436 soviet over the last 9 turns/2 months. Thats over a 20-1 loss ratio. My experince is that as air engine is of lately less the russian player maximize its game, u not going any where near historical loss rates and are in no way close to empthying axis AC pools. Quite the opposite that the axis pool are way better than historic ones.
When i say maximize i dont mean being gamey, but paying attention and giving the use of VVS thots and energy.

Also since we are at the subject of airforces and i know this is a petpeeve of urs. Historicly lots of the Luftwaffe was during the war withdrawn from the easter front especially figthers going back to defend the reich. Going by memory here but IIRC there are only by mid '44, 3 and a half JG left on the eastern front. What of Luftwaffe is withdrawn in game now?

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[heliodorus04]

I am indeed learning a lot about 1.06 versions, and I also realize I need to get up to speed on AARs since I've been playing the AI at 105 logistics and 400 admin

I'm happy to see the changes I see so far, and I've seen more SEC routs already than I ever remember before. It makes me very hopeful that the brigades won't be so easy to spam towards turn 17.

I take seriously the debate had (I think earlier in this AAR in fact) about the changes to airbase bombing. I'm in fact in favor of the changes to Turn 1 German bombing (though I didn't know to exploit the turn sequence the way someone recommended I do here).

I'm trying to be less anchored to my older view of things.

I also, let us never forget, need to improve as a player. I also hope to learn in this game some of the things I am not doing that a German player must do in order to succeed at driving the Soviet back in 41/42 to make 43/44 manageable (not going for the 260 VPs - I do not think I'm skilled enough to obtain them).

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
I'm happy to see the changes I see so far, and I've seen more SEC routs already than I
ever remember before.

And for the last several months you've been ranting about these "over-powerd" security units... I hope playing this game will let you focus on the real, current, problems with the game rather than stuff like over-rated security units.

[randallw]

What he really wants is them to crack part ( shatter, or some type of overrun style result ). [:D]

[notenome]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: notenome

I go back and forth in regards to stacks. Stacking greatly increases losses from air bombardment, for example. These early 41 stacks are great for that because a) they have a lot of undamaged elements b) the luftwaffe is far behind 3) they aren't in forts 4)they are often in clear terrain. Whenever I spot panzers gasing behind the front I'll hit them mercilessly, disrupting and damaging hundreds of elements. Late 41, especially if you run the puppies hard, triple stacks become vulnerable if the Soviets can get enough frontage.

Open question about intentions versus capabilities in the engine:
I would have never thought of empty HQ muling. It's just outside my imagination level. Even if I had thought of it, I probably wouldn't have employed it, because I try to play within the intended capabilities of a game. Even back to my 2nd Edition D&D days, I frowned on min/maxing, and I still do, because it undermines the spirit of sportsmanship as I perceive and practice it . I frowned on muling, and I frowned on factory raiding, and I frowned on Army Airbase fuel muling.

That's my personal ethics, like obeying traffic laws when I'm on my bicycle. Abuse of systems breeds contempt for system and abuser alike, and contributes to further abuse.

I think the War in the East air war engine is easily measurable as favoring Soviet quantity over German quality, and it's a snowball that slowly builds and can be wielded too easily in favor of the Soviet side (which I already feel has tremendous systemic advantages in its gameplay). When I have played against Soviets who bomb furiously in 1941, I have objected to the tactic. When I played Soviet, I did not bomb indiscriminately, but only for support of planned ground attacks.

If the Soviet player wants to min max every advantage the game engine gives him, I see little, if any point playing a game like that. I think the foreknowledge that the Soviets have hordes of Aircraft to burn in the hands of players who orchestrate Overlord style strategic and tactical bombing turn after turn after turn, are abusing the capabilities of the air war engine, and violating the spirit of fair play. Certainly reasonable people can disagree on that and on a number of assertions/generalizations I'm making.

It's the kind of thing that, like empty HQ muling, and coordinated 1941 airborne pocket breaking, would have left me to leave the game in frustration that the designers didn't have more foresight to code against the abusive nature of competitive gaming. I like to play the game. I don't like to have to invent counters to strategems that are so 'outside the box' that they border on exploitative.

Yes, I practice Lvov, and that is exactly the counter example to my high-horse-edness. One person's rationalization is another person's transparently self-serving bias. That's why I say this post is a discussion. I do not mean this personally against anyone or any side or any strategem. It's just that I like to play the KIND of gamer who doesn't seek to rules-lawyer, who is seeking fun experience, not a successful outcome.

The only reason I'm playing a person again is because it's Pelton, a person I know will help give me the kind of game I will enjoy, as in my Admin bonus.

I also, let us never forget, need to improve as a player. I also hope to learn in this game some of the things I am not doing that a German player must do in order to succeed at driving the Soviet back in 41/42 to make 43/44 manageable (not going for the 260 VPs - I do not think I'm skilled enough to obtain them).

I don't disagree with you on this, but I also don't see air bombing as gamey, it is something that occurred a lot during the war. As one of the few Soviet players that still insists on aggressive defense, it should be pretty evident I'm not one for gamey tactics (and whilst we are on that subject, I absolutely hate the 41 blizzard defense of having a ruler straight frontline).

Bombing of troop concentrations was par for the course in WWII, not to mention the deliberate bombing of HQs (something I don't do). Before Overlord a lot of German generals were in the hospital thanks to allied targeted strikes. Since ground attacks are a limited resource in this game (the whole first mission thing), you have to prioritize what you hit, and during turns that you're not going to do a counterattack, then you need to pick up on targets of opportunity based on value/density/terrain.