Razing the Reich

[Michael T]

Half way thru my T55, finished my attacks. 35K of hun sent to the dead pile for 70K of Sov's. Excellent. Boy I am loving these INF Corp. 3 Sapper Reg each they eat krauts and their forts. The pattern is 3 or 4 waves of 6 X Divisional attacks, then hit em with the big boys.

[randallw]

Hooray for Middle Earth guys. [:D]

[morvael]

Stalin might be Sauron, but Hitler doesn't look like Frodo.

[horza66]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Half way thru my T55, finished my attacks. 35K of hun sent to the dead pile for 70K of Sov's. Excellent. Boy I am loving these INF Corp. 3 Sapper Reg each they eat krauts and their forts. The pattern is 3 or 4 waves of 6 X Divisional attacks, then hit em with the big boys.

I assume you're seeing a lot of reserve activations on the initial waves? Are these all exhausted by the time you commit your corps in the final attack?

I'd like to think that distributing the panzers across the front is not a viable strategy. Makes for a more interesting game if they're better deployed in force.

How are your armament points holding up? Is it perhaps worth you adding some Gun Brigades to your front to maximize German casualties?

[Michael T]

Yes lots of reserves. But they eventually stop, or the defenders are so exhausted the reserves don't make any difference when the main attack begins.

You will see from my last report I had 600K of arms saved up. But they got devoured by the so called 'Rifle Squad Upgrade' where you lose 2 men per squad and its costs you ~800K-900K in Arm points. It sucked the 600K up so probably 3 more weeks wasted on that before I can start building some more Artillery. But I will be banking most for a massive buildfest of ART XX come October 42. I won't be wasting my time or AP with brigades. Just extra regs for HQ's untill the Arty XX become available.

With Pelton's defensive stance I don't have to build any defensive support units at all. It's all out offensive gear only, just my style

If Pelton thinks 42 is bad wait till he gets some 43 action. There is going to be 100 turns of pent up frustration unleashed on his sorry arse....

[BletchleyGeek]

I don't want to litter Michael's thread, though,

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

I tried a game with Logistics set to 50% and it does not do what you would think it does. From the manual:

Logistics Level: Impacts the formulas that determine the amount of supply and replacements a unit receives based on its supply trace, the amount of attrition a unit suffers due to movement, the amount of fatigue added or removed from a unit during a turn, and the amount of fuel expended by generic vehicles. This level also affects the ability of leaders to conduct successful admin checks.

We were looking to test something with lower supply production and the Logistics setting changed much more than that. Also note that if you reduce the supply production, it shorts the production side of the equation before the combat units see less supply. So we were unable to find a way to reduce the amount of supplies going to the troops without decimating the production system.

Well, that sorts of is at odds with what I'm seeing - and my opponent is telling me about. He's having trouble to keep the Panzers at top MP's, either because they're out of fuel or leaders are failing admin checks. As the Soviet I'm seeing that replacements take a longer time to reach front units not sitting on top of a railroad, and mauled Soviet formations aren't 'insta re-filled', it is now necessary to take them well to the rear in order to rebuild them. This makes operations in theaters such as the Valdai Hills region quite challenging. I'm also seeing ammunition shortages all across the board, something that was quite rare to happen.

Maybe we were expecting different things from this, but what we're getting is that supply takes time to reach the front units, so there's an ebb and flow of activity in the front. This hasn't hurted much my opponent: the battle lines are now very much they were historically in September 1941. He didn't play the Lvov gambit, but still managed to basically destroy the Western Front in a series of linked encirclement battles on the road from Smolensk to Moscow.

I look forward to the Blizzard: maybe I'll be able to wreck the Red Army by going on the offensive for too long [:)]

[carlkay58]

Thanks BG - I looked it up and our game was under 1.04 rules - many changes since then are probably the difference that you are seeing. I may have to go back and revisit that concept.

[Michael T]

I am opening this up to Pelton. It no longer matters what he sees here now as the updates will be delayed and to be honest I am so far in front it is of no consequence.

[Peltonx]

13 pages and 19k views for our boring game?

The way the combat ratio was nerfed many moons ago you dont need to build a single SU of anything really. I beleive the first turn u started attacking you went 5 wins and 25 loses and my OOB dropped 40,000 in a single turn. Some of the battles I "won" I lost more men and equipement then you did. You can exploit the off ratio as you have by attacking the same hex 3 to 6 times. Several hexs I won all 4 or 5 battles, but suffered 4 to 6 k in losses. So as SHC you only need to attack, winning is not nessasary.

If you did not build another unit the rest of the game and combined units only you can grind down German army because of the lose ratio numbers. Even when your losing your winning. You do not need a single art/tank/at ect ect.

Why 1v1=2v1 had to be nerfed, you could deplete the German OOB by early 43 if you could survive the massive HQB's during 41.

The combat ratio is still way to forgiving of SHC loses in many cases.

With the last Hiwi nerf German OOB's are tanking quickly, even when they win 82% of the time. Your losses were only slightly higher then what you would have been getting if I held most of the normal citys. 100k per turn I am sure they are near 120k now.

if the Germans win 82% of the defensive battles the combat ratio should not be 2.6 to 1. Thats insanely low and not close to the historical average for 1942. Which was atleast 5 to 1 by most historians, that does not include surrenders. I am talking German vs Russian no minor allies.

When you attack and win the GHC loses are higher then SHC loses in many cases? That is simply silly.

[Peltonx]

Armaments are never and issue any more only in 42 and only because u moved them.

Its baked into the cake that during 42 SHC will not beable to push much, because of up grades ect. If you dont rail out industry your a moron or made a big mistake.

[Michael T]

I am bleeding you Pelton because I have the men and Arm to do so. If your 41 campaign had been like it was in your other games and you had fought thru the blizzard there is no way I could be doing what I am now. You gave me initiative and the manpower to do it. Also since there is no AP crunch I can build many Corp.

You can't make a judgement about the games (WITE) state from this game because its so left of centre. But the boring days will be gone come 43, then you will see some real death for Germany [:D]

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Pelton


if the Germans win 82% of the defensive battles the combat ratio should not be 2.6 to 1. Thats insanely low and not close to the historical average for 1942. Which was atleast 5 to 1 by most historians, that does not include surrenders. I am talking German vs Russian no minor allies.

You are doubtless right, but we also know that russian manpower reinforcements during the game are millions of men behind historical numbers. If you have your historical losses, there would be no red army at all. Half the reinforcement manpower and half the losses maintains balance - assuming that's what we have.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I am opening this up to Pelton. It no longer matters what he sees here now as the updates will be delayed and to be honest I am so far in front it is of no consequence.

Miaow [:D]

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The way the combat ratio was nerfed many moons ago you dont need to build a single SU of anything really. I beleive the first turn u started attacking you went 5 wins and 25 loses and my OOB dropped 40,000 in a single turn. Some of the battles I "won" I lost more men and equipement then you did. You can exploit the off ratio as you have by attacking the same hex 3 to 6 times. Several hexs I won all 4 or 5 battles, but suffered 4 to 6 k in losses. So as SHC you only need to attack, winning is not nessasary.

Yes, Pelton, Michael is correct: You shouldn't put much weight in the numbers in this game, your situation and the chance Michael got to gring away like this are home-baked. Had Michael suffered an "average" 1941 defeat, cutting him to 4M to 5M men, and pushing him much further back, he simply couldn't afford this.

This game is just quite far outside the norm and should indeed have ended with major victory in March. At least in the case that one fails to reduce the Soviets by blizzard to that rough number, a withdrawal to Poland will only speed up disaster -- I think that's pretty obvious now.

The grinding with numerous stacks is something you exploit as well, just to note. Everyone needing to open LG's backdoor for example surely has to do it. It is not a specific side's advantage, thought the way and benefits Michael pulls from it sounds like something that should be more typical for 1944. It simply comes down to I-Go-U-Go, this kind of system is not very surprisingly strongly in favor of the one with the initiate/turn, aka the attacker. In reality, if the Germans take a day to switch out assault columns, so the defenders ought to be able to shuffle reinforcements. The reserve mode kind of gets that, but is far to unreliable compared to yourself selecting and moving units.

[Flaviusx]

Pelton, the basic problem here is and always has been your strategy. It's a disaster. You made a terrible mistake on staking it all on the right hook when it was clear that Michael knew you were going there and threw everything he had at stopping this. Then you compounded that error by running away to Poland and removing any pressure at all on Michael's replacement situation. Everything that has happened in this game was completely predictable and was in fact predicted.

The real surprise would have been if what you did worked.

[Peltonx]

Turn 57 GHC armaments: 110,000

Russian losses this turn: ,000 Total dead: 3,636,000
Russian OOB: 6,682,000
A net gain of: 00,000

German losses this turn: ,000 Total dead: 1,592,000
GHC OOB: 3,722,000
A net gain of: 00,000


———–Won——–—Lost———Ratio
SHC——7—————31—–——18%
GHC—————————
———Combat losses——-
SHC—— 114,000
GHC—— 27,000

Casualties losses ratio: 4.1 to 1

That doesn’t include attrition loses just combat from the 38 battles.

With attrition losses of 20,000? for GHC and 40,000? for SHC you get a 3.2 to 1 ratio.

I will need a few more turns of total dead to track the casualties ratio to include attrition loses.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I am bleeding you Pelton because I have the men and Arm to do so. If your 41 campaign had been like it was in your other games and you had fought thru the blizzard there is no way I could be doing what I am now. You gave me initiative and the manpower to do it. Also since there is no AP crunch I can build many Corp.

You can't make a judgement about the games (WITE) state from this game because its so left of centre. But the boring days will be gone come 43, then you will see some real death for Germany [:D]

If is not part of the numbers game as you know, feelings don't cause casualties.

1. You would have the armaments no matter what as it is not and has not been an issue for over a yr.
2. The 41 summer was normal for you, as we have talked the deck is stacked towards SHC. I can cut and past your own words if you like, but I don't think you will bother to disagree with yourself. "Winning as russian player is much easyer then german"
3. As you know if I had suck around during blizzard I would be much weaker then now. My morale is much higher then normal and still going up because your losing 80% of the battles the last 4 turns.

The key was your low loses before Dec 2.5 million and which is becoming the norm for SHC if you play your cards right.

If I had fought forward or even with draw a few hexs a turn I would have only saved about 10 hexes over all for a huge price. I would have been far weaker then now and you a little weaker.

I would not have been able to push east.

If your 41 campaign had been like it was in your other games

I am playing you not other people. My wishfull thinking or yours will not change that.

This is my 27th game and 17th that made it into 1942. Its not to hard to tell for me what would happen if I had stuck around, you would have started grinding in late 1942 once river frooze and be in Berlin in late 44 early 45. Me being 100 miles to east would not have changed anything as you know.

As you know from your past SHC games its about 1941 SHC loses. I beleive you are also right to say that lossing Moscow is not a big deal, if you have only around 2.5 to 2.7 million in losses, because you easly retake it and with a huge army by June 1942 GHC would not be able to push from Tula north.

Lets try and stick to what has happened and what is happening in our game. Which will not be easy for myself.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, the basic problem here is and always has been your strategy. It's a disaster. You made a terrible mistake on staking it all on the right hook when it was clear that Michael knew you were going there and threw everything he had at stopping this. Then you compounded that error by running away to Poland and removing any pressure at all on Michael's replacement situation. Everything that has happened in this game was completely predictable and was in fact predicted.

The real surprise would have been if what you did worked.

Leningrad holding is not a surpise in any game now as we all know.

Moscow holding is not a surpise in any game now as we all know.

I agree that now it is predictable that Leningrad and Moscow will be held. The surpise now is when someone takes Leningrad.

I completely disagree and I would think you know better that me sticking around would have done anything other then put SHC in a much better position.

If MT had a gimpy blizzard O he would have lost a 800,000 men tops. I would have only held another 100 to 150 miles to east. Had 10 pts less over all morale.

I would have not been able to push east no matter what in 1942. MT as you stated yourself in this thread amazing had a carpet of level 3 forts done by first clear turn.

The game would have simply played out as Kamils/Hooopers and TDV's had in the past. I have played many games into 43+ and know from exp and not feelings/guessing based on #'s ect ect what the out come would have been. What do you think MT would have a brain fart come 1942 and magicly fall apart?

As I stated months ago Leningrad holding, low SHC losses, Moscow never falling, strong SHC blizzard O and 7 million man SHC carpets by June 1942 would be normal and predictable.

You as MT can wish I had done better, but I have done the same as everyone esle vs MT in 1941 summer.

It is predictable as I have months ago.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: janh

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The way the combat ratio was nerfed many moons ago you dont need to build a single SU of anything really. I beleive the first turn u started attacking you went 5 wins and 25 loses and my OOB dropped 40,000 in a single turn. Some of the battles I "won" I lost more men and equipement then you did. You can exploit the off ratio as you have by attacking the same hex 3 to 6 times. Several hexs I won all 4 or 5 battles, but suffered 4 to 6 k in losses. So as SHC you only need to attack, winning is not nessasary.

Yes, Pelton, Michael is correct: You shouldn't put much weight in the numbers in this game, your situation and the chance Michael got to gring away like this are home-baked. Had Michael suffered an "average" 1941 defeat, cutting him to 4M to 5M men, and pushing him much further back, he simply couldn't afford this.

This game is just quite far outside the norm and should indeed have ended with major victory in March. At least in the case that one fails to reduce the Soviets by blizzard to that rough number, a withdrawal to Poland will only speed up disaster -- I think that's pretty obvious now.

The grinding with numerous stacks is something you exploit as well, just to note. Everyone needing to open LG's backdoor for example surely has to do it. It is not a specific side's advantage, thought the way and benefits Michael pulls from it sounds like something that should be more typical for 1944. It simply comes down to I-Go-U-Go, this kind of system is not very surprisingly strongly in favor of the one with the initiate/turn, aka the attacker. In reality, if the Germans take a day to switch out assault columns, so the defenders ought to be able to shuffle reinforcements. The reserve mode kind of gets that, but is far to unreliable compared to yourself selecting and moving units.

1. Cutting SHC to 4 million and pushing him to east more is really not doable vs a good SHC player. The normal game now is 2.5 to 2.75 in losses for SHC before Dec 1941.
A 5 million + SHC army by Dec is normal and a 7 million man army by June normal.

2. The game is really normal as far as numbers go. IF I had stayed to take a beating during Blizzard I would have simply been 100-150 miles to east. Summer of 1942 would have been static other then SHC attacking about 15 times as Hoooper/Kamil and TDV have done in past to keep GHC OOB static.

3. Staying or running to Poland does not change the end date is what I predict to be true. I from exp already know the results of staying. I am not guessing I have far more exp in post 41 games then anyone playing. Its not even close.

I want from playing the game out to know the results based on game play and not guessing/feelings ect ect.

[Peltonx]

Thanks for letting me on thread MT. I read page 13 only as the 12 other pages would be boring at best hehehe

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
2. The game is really normal as far as numbers go. IF I had stayed to take a beating during Blizzard I would have simply been 100-150 miles to east. Summer of 1942 would have been static other then SHC attacking about 15 times as Hoooper/Kamil and TDV have done in past to keep GHC OOB static.

3. Staying or running to Poland does not change the end date is what I predict to be true. I from exp already know the results of staying. I am not guessing I have far more exp in post 41 games then anyone playing. Its not even close.

Fighting it out for every yard during blizzard probably would have been worse. You are certainly right there. But if you had done the slow 1-2 hex withdrawals per turn of the earlier games, you would have denied Michael a lot of terrain and also manpower centers. I all the time thought this match was very "un-Peltonish", if you understand what I meant -- you kind of bend all the rules you yourself set up earlier, like the importance of manpower centers.

Don't feel attacked, I have no intention so. Sitting outside and watching both sides of the coin, it is easy to say things -- which may be totally off. I wouldn't want to have been in your shoes that moment that our big Panzerfist got stuck in the Valdai hills. It could have worked, and maybe next time it will again. Just an experiment gone wrong. I only don't think you really can draw too many conclusions from this number wise. It is too unusual, and it sure looks more like a 1944 situation with 1942 technology but still poorly experienced Russians than a typical 1942 game.

PS. I am not sure yet that Michaels way into Berlin will be an easy and quick one given your unit morale, and the possibility to disband many LW units, or Security divisions to bump your manpower pools given that you have short lines and nothing much to garrison presently. Might be a long walk into Berlin, evening with successful attrition tactics.