Sapper 22 Invades his Homeland

[Tom Hunter]

That may be true, or he may be digging in on a line further back, either way he is giving me a much needed rest several turns before the weather forces him to.

[mktours]

Tom, I tend to disagree.
Indeed, I feel many good axis players like Michael T would agree that if the Soviet side react correctly, then it is almost impossible to lose. I read this forum quite thoroughly and that is my impression.
I am also playing a campaign as Soviet against Saper in the latest version at this moment, He has pocketed the SW front and 16A, but that is a normal lose. Although Saper is certainly a player way better than me, I still believe I could defend it, simply because the SHC has too much advantages.
The game is far from being decided after 2 turns. The challenge is nothing if being compared with what Zhukov was facing in the winter in 1941. A good SHC should be able to rally from disasters.

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

You may be right Pelton, I made some early mistakes that caused knock on effects, for example the Leningrad pocket happened because I did not have the troops to fill a hole that I knew was there. Those troops were lost T2 near Minsk because I did not have a good understanding of how fast Saper222 could move.

Saper222 may be able to pull off an auto victory in 1942 but I am doing what I can to stop him.

As I play the game one of the things I find interesting is the way design decisions cause reinforcing feedback loops. These can be very hard to break, for example Red Army losses in T1 or T2 can weaken the defense in ways that cause more losses later. I'm not sure this is good, because it can make the game very deterministic, and deterministic equals broken in the mind of most players. After all, where is the fun in playing a game when you know what will happen in the end and can't change it?

I'm still playing and thinking about this, but its something I am likely to return to in the discussion around this AAR.

[Gabriel B.]

It is not a normal loss, because the SW front was not that foward deployed .

To be acurate ,turn 1 deployment represents the position it took on 26th , this makes me wonder what the soviet player is supose to do in the 22-26 timeframe ....[:)] since the movement to position is already made .

In the case of 8th Mech corps, 22nd Mech corps , 19th Mech corps, 9th Mech corps this is painfuly obvious .

Not so much for the 4th or 15th , which either run circles in the first 4 days or barely moved .

[mktours]

Gabriel,
I enjoy learning history knowledge from you, [:)]
When I said normal loss, I am referring to game playing. The game need to create some early disaster to make the game balance. After click the start button, things are impossible to be 100% historical correct. We see the SHC would not voluntarily allow the Kiev encirclement. I believe the most thrilling feeling in playing SHC is to rally from disaster. To sort out the mess in the opening turns is daunting but it offer the challenge. Without some disaster, the SHC could just cruise to win.
Lvov opening is very common, the extend Lvov is a double edge sword as it demands more troops to be transfered to the south and good SHC would know how to deal with it to be rewarded. The new opening of Saper is beautiful, it makes the game very competitive from the beginning.I appreciate it and myself is enjoying at defending it, though I am not sure if I could win as Saper is a better player than me.

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.

It is not a normal loss, because the SW front was not that foward deployed .

To be acurate ,turn 1 deployment represents the position it took on 26th , this makes me wonder what the soviet player is supose to do in the 22-26 timeframe ....[:)] since the movement to position is already made .

In the case of 8th Mech corps, 22nd Mech corps , 19th Mech corps, 9th Mech corps this is painfuly obvious .

Not so much for the 4th or 15th , which either run circles in the first 4 days or barely moved .

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: mktours

Tom, I tend to disagree.
Indeed, I feel many good axis players like Michael T would agree that if the Soviet side react correctly, then it is almost impossible to lose. I read this forum quite thoroughly and that is my impression.
I am also playing a campaign as Soviet against Saper in the latest version at this moment, He has pocketed the SW front and 16A, but that is a normal lose. Although Saper is certainly a player way better than me, I still believe I could defend it, simply because the SHC has too much advantages.
The game is far from being decided after 2 turns. The challenge is nothing if being compared with what Zhukov was facing in the winter in 1941. A good SHC should be able to rally from disasters.

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

You may be right Pelton, I made some early mistakes that caused knock on effects, for example the Leningrad pocket happened because I did not have the troops to fill a hole that I knew was there. Those troops were lost T2 near Minsk because I did not have a good understanding of how fast Saper222 could move.

Saper222 may be able to pull off an auto victory in 1942 but I am doing what I can to stop him.

As I play the game one of the things I find interesting is the way design decisions cause reinforcing feedback loops. These can be very hard to break, for example Red Army losses in T1 or T2 can weaken the defense in ways that cause more losses later. I'm not sure this is good, because it can make the game very deterministic, and deterministic equals broken in the mind of most players. After all, where is the fun in playing a game when you know what will happen in the end and can't change it?

I'm still playing and thinking about this, but its something I am likely to return to in the discussion around this AAR.

Sapper has been defeated in the past, under better fuel/MP/logistical rule sets and so have I. Taking Moscow vs a good Russian player is simply not possible case in point:

MT vs Kamil tm.asp?m=3312376&mpage=11&key=

vs good Russian players that hold Moscow a draw is the best out come you can hope for as GHC under 1.07.11, unless the Russian player makes huge errors building Red Army 2.0
I would very much like a rematch vs Kamil and Hooooper once 1.07.13 is out as all the swapping bugs will be fixed by then.

vs the good Russian players I have failed to take Moscow once in 1941 under 1.06.13 much better fuel/MP/logistics rule sets vs Bobo, Hugh, Brian and Bigbubba.

Sapper stopping offensive operations so soon is a big mistake, your Army will grow very fast.

Sapper has only 1 games exp in 1942 and his tactics were a huge mistake the same for Bomazz. Even MT had next to nothing in exp past June 1942.

The rule set very much favors Russia holding Moscow IF your a good Russian player.

This opinion is based on the facts.

Good Russain players never lose Moscow.

PS M60 has lost Moscow in the past, but he has learnt from is errors and probably will never lose it again.


Also under 1.07.11 all things being equal should end in a draw, the German Army is simply not going to fall apart any more because of swapping bugs.

[Flaviusx]

Pelton, Sapper is so far ahead that it doesn't matter if he stops now. He just needs to ride out the winter and then deliver the coup de grace in 1942, and bear in mind this isn't the old blizzard anymore.

He could give up 150 miles across the front and still have a line east of Leningrad, Moscow, Voronezh and Rostov come spring.

Should he press on? Probably, but it's a moot point, he's crippled the Soviet replacement situation, at least in terms of manpower. Not sure what the factory losses are.

This is as lopsided a mismatch as you'll ever see and the results are predictable. They've been predictable to me since about turn 2. Bambi loses to Godzilla every time.

[SigUp]

I think they are playing with the old blizzard rules. But I agree, it is pretty lopsided and it would surprise me if this match gets beyond 1942.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, Sapper is so far ahead that it doesn't matter if he stops now. He just needs to ride out the winter and then deliver the coup de grace in 1942, and bear in mind this isn't the old blizzard anymore.

He could give up 150 miles across the front and still have a line east of Leningrad, Moscow, Voronezh and Rostov come spring.

Should he press on? Probably, but it's a moot point, he's crippled the Soviet replacement situation, at least in terms of manpower. Not sure what the factory losses are.

This is as lopsided a mismatch as you'll ever see and the results are predictable. They've been predictable to me since about turn 2. Bambi loses to Godzilla every time.

True and true.

Mybee he wants some 1942 exp so when he needs it he will have a better understanding of what to do.

Cat playing with the mouse kind of thing.

[Tom Hunter]

Maybe I was not clear when I wrote about the game being deterministic, or perhaps it was my Soviet/Lvov pocket example.
I’m not saying anything about the Soviets winning or losing when I say the game systems work in a way that may be deterministic. I’m saying that the feedback loops built into the design, combined with victory conditions based on holding cities at a specific moment in time tend to make the game deterministic.

To use the counter example, if the Germans don’t kill tons of Soviet units and capture a lot of cities early they have no chance at all. They need to have a very good turn 1, but after playing Saper222 I think they need to have a very good turn 2,3, all the way up to 17. Neither side seems to have good options to recover from mistakes, or even bad dice. This contrasts with War in the Pacific, where a player seems to have multiple options to recover a game that is going badly (barring somehow losing the Japanese Cv fleet early, but that very seldom happens).

So early moves, successes and mistakes magnify each other in ways that are not necessarily historical. Based on the comments in the forums,” if the Soviet side react correctly, then it is almost impossible to lose” -Mktours, “vs good Russian players that hold Moscow a draw is the best out come you can hope for as GHC under 1.07.1” –Pelton the effect is not great for play balance or for fun either.

I hope its clear that my comments on the design are about the design, not about any particular game mine or others. Pelton’s examples appear to support my point, Gabriel I am not sure what you disagree with, maybe this email helps clarify things and will lead to more discussion.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Maybe I was not clear when I wrote about the game being deterministic, or perhaps it was my Soviet/Lvov pocket example.
I’m not saying anything about the Soviets winning or losing when I say the game systems work in a way that may be deterministic. I’m saying that the feedback loops built into the design, combined with victory conditions based on holding cities at a specific moment in time tend to make the game deterministic.

To use the counter example, if the Germans don’t kill tons of Soviet units and capture a lot of cities early they have no chance at all. They need to have a very good turn 1, but after playing Saper222 I think they need to have a very good turn 2,3, all the way up to 17. Neither side seems to have good options to recover from mistakes, or even bad dice. This contrasts with War in the Pacific, where a player seems to have multiple options to recover a game that is going badly (barring somehow losing the Japanese Cv fleet early, but that very seldom happens).

So early moves, successes and mistakes magnify each other in ways that are not necessarily historical. Based on the comments in the forums,” if the Soviet side react correctly, then it is almost impossible to lose” -Mktours, “vs good Russian players that hold Moscow a draw is the best out come you can hope for as GHC under 1.07.1” –Pelton the effect is not great for play balance or for fun either.

I hope its clear that my comments on the design are about the design, not about any particular game mine or others. Pelton’s examples appear to support my point, Gabriel I am not sure what you disagree with, maybe this email helps clarify things and will lead to more discussion.

It is true the GHC player has to have good turns from 1-10 ish, but the SHC player only needs to take the edge off each turn so that by turn 11-13 they are some what in control of there future.

Then comes 41/42 blizzard where GHC or SHC can lose their advantage.

Then again in 1942 both sides can make errors and give the other side the upper hand.

Then in 1943 SHC can make major errors with trucks or building the wrong Red Army 2.0

1.07.11 really added allot to the game 42-45 of which very few players have and exp.

The key is Moscow in 1941, which is historical in my opinion. If SHC can hang on to it, there is allot of the game to experience.

[Tom Hunter]

Airwar,
Saper222 continues to attack the Red Airforce. I’ve been watching the battles, and seen numerous posts that ask about the air war. Over all he destroyed Soviet planes at a rate of 5 to 1 in his favor in T15 but as always the details count.

I had my first successes up in the Leningrad area fighting the Finns, and was thinking it was because it was Migs and Laggs vs Gloucester Gladiators and other obsolete types. I think that is a factor, but looking at the combat model it does seem that numbers of fighters are more important than type.

These two air battles contain very similar mixes of Soviet planes. The top group fought at just about 1 to 1 and the losses were very similar, and certainly not sustainable for the Luftwaffe. The lower group were badly outnumbered, and the Germans achieved a 1 to 3 loss rate, which is more or less a win for the Germans.

Soviet air moral is in the 60s and 70s, the experience levels are mostly in the 60s but there are some up to 75.

My takeaway is you need to be looking for 1 to 1 odds if you can get them.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Maybe I was not clear when I wrote about the game being deterministic, or perhaps it was my Soviet/Lvov pocket example.
I’m not saying anything about the Soviets winning or losing when I say the game systems work in a way that may be deterministic. I’m saying that the feedback loops built into the design, combined with victory conditions based on holding cities at a specific moment in time tend to make the game deterministic.

To use the counter example, if the Germans don’t kill tons of Soviet units and capture a lot of cities early they have no chance at all. They need to have a very good turn 1, but after playing Saper222 I think they need to have a very good turn 2,3, all the way up to 17. Neither side seems to have good options to recover from mistakes, or even bad dice. This contrasts with War in the Pacific, where a player seems to have multiple options to recover a game that is going badly (barring somehow losing the Japanese Cv fleet early, but that very seldom happens).

tm.asp?m=3294378
Look at Terje's AAR, even with a disastrous 1941 and subpar 42 he still nearly managed to draw the game. In fact he held Berlin until June 45. So I tend to disagree slightly with the notion that it is nearly impossible to recover from mistakes.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

These two air battles contain very similar mixes of Soviet planes. The top group fought at just about 1 to 1 and the losses were very similar, and certainly not sustainable for the Luftwaffe. The lower group were badly outnumbered, and the Germans achieved a 1 to 3 loss rate, which is more or less a win for the Germans.

Soviet air moral is in the 60s and 70s, the experience levels are mostly in the 60s but there are some up to 75.

My takeaway is you need to be looking for 1 to 1 odds if you can get them.

I'd very much agree, in the early game phases the easiest way to wreck the VVS is to deploy your fighters in isolated groups. If you can't build a decent force (and that can include any and all the I-series) into a front, then its almost better to leave it empty (except possibly in the south where you are probably tangling with Axis Allied air)

Having said that, as long as you keep your industry more or less intact, I'm not sure that over time it makes a great deal of difference. At phases in the early game you'll have air superiority on one front or the other simply due to delays in bringing up the Luftwaffe - in my current game with SigUP, on the Moscow Front the VVS is pretty unopposed but in the North I need to swap my fighter squadrons out every other turn. By mid-42, its the German who has to pick where they want to contest the airwar.

Something I've started doing early is getting rid of the SAD air bases. The freed manpower is very welcome and it usually means you can gain 8-10 replacements before the VVS swaps to its mid-war OOB (at which stage its near impossible (even using junk) to load up your airbases to trigger this.

[Tom Hunter]

@SigUp I'ts always a design issue. You want cause an effect so players have control, but you want the end of the game to be inevitable at the start. Tic Tack Toe is the obvious example, we all though it was fun when we were 4 years old, sometime after that we figured out how to make every game a draw and it stopped being fun.

I'm still thinking about it, and I will look at that AAR. One of the reasons I keep playing this game is to see how our play interacts and look at what happens and what could be done next time. I've read a number of other AARs, and my thinking is based on those as much as this game, maybe based more on the other AARs than this game.

This game like any other single game, is a set of data points. It does not prove much either way.

[Flaviusx]

Terje is the master of the drawn out Axis defense and has surprised me repeatedly stretching out some really awful games to the bitter end and beyond. These almost count as moral victories for him.

Tom, you are not wrong that the game has a number of feedback loops built into it that tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Starting with, for example, the entire morale mechanic.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter
Maybe I was not clear when I wrote about the game being deterministic, or perhaps it was my Soviet/Lvov pocket example.
I’m not saying anything about the Soviets winning or losing when I say the game systems work in a way that may be deterministic. I’m saying that the feedback loops built into the design, combined with victory conditions based on holding cities at a specific moment in time tend to make the game deterministic.

This was pretty clear on your first statement already, and it is spot on to be honest. There were discussions in that regard and one conclusions was that one major weakness of WitE is that it is a "battlefield in vacuum", so to speak. All external factors, i.e. German production/reinforcement/withdrawal and replacement are derived from the historical course, and so is the entire Russian environment from Lend and Lease amounts to replacement/recruitment or unit cost.

There is simply no mechanism at this point that would treat situations (far) outside of the historical course, say the Germans having such and excellent campaign far exceeding expectations and goals just as you suffer from now, in which case most like the war mobilization would not have been pushed as it was, or perhaps even leading to Wehrmacht taking up its 1940 plans to take Gibraltar, send more troops to Africa or ultimately take on the Middle East -- which would all mean substantial unit withdrawals since the remaining Russian enemy was only to be finished or clean up. No more. Similarly, there no acceleration or increased "emergency" drafts on either side if situations deteriorate, or an increase in Lend and Lease as probably would have been the case if the Russian side had been closer to collapse -- without that front the Allies would have faced nearly insurmountable problems, so that they would have certainly seen to be avoided.

As such, there may be hope that a future "War in Europe" may include such limiting or "damping factors" to these "feedback-loops", within the realm of plausibility. But for now, when a game deteriorates as much as your situation, it will loose credibility. If not playability. I fear your present situation does not pose any hope anymore. I cannot see you be able to mount a good blizzard offensive with your present beat up Army, especially if I look at the buffer space Sapper has created and where he likely is digging. He will withdraw in December, maybe even in January, winter his most precious armor and infantry divs in the West, and face you with renewed strength while your morale will go down in 1942 -- no matter what "true" course and effects the 1941 battles will have had.

I think Sapper is truly in for a coup de grace, and it may be merely formal. Contrary to some of the above posts, e.g. mktours, it would appear that the present "balance point" of the game is fairly even. There has never been a real proof that either side is clearly having an advantage with the given VP sets, and statistically very few games to make any such claim. On top of that some are so peculiar and show one side or the other attempting new things that turn out to be major mistakes (e.g. the German player amassing all armor in one narrow axis of advance rather than use it to stretch the Russians thin, or even on top of that using such a clump of tanks to bully through the best defensive terrain on the map -- which naturally violates all wisdom on mobile warfare with little surprising end), that many cannot be considered fully or at all. With the latest changes it feels like the Axis challenge has gone up, but the Russian side still has to work hard to stop the steamroller, and is certainly neither doomed nor sure to be victorious. Chances for counterattacks have improved, but so has the German combat power with support units. Moral on the Russian side is also more stable, but in return this side now needs to more carefully built up, train and save its units if it wants to have a blizzard offensive under the new rule-set. I'd say right now the game is somewhere in the good middle ground, with factors like random weather and logistic constraint necessary to avoid to be biased too much to high offensive tempo (which applies to both Axis and Soviet, just at different phases). Beyond that, any talk of bias seems very mood at this point.

[M60A3TTS]

People who often reference Michael T's games ignore the fact that he is an exceptional player on either side. So his results don't typify the norm. Moderately good Axis players can hedgehog effectively for extended periods of time without any logistical constraints. The Soviet player who is going to have any degree of mobility is largely tied to a truck fleet that remains stretched until the middle of 1943. The Soviet vehicle multiplier of .55 from 1942 onwards means making some very hard choices as to what does or does not get built.

[Tom Hunter]

There is no reason to screenshot the map, as the lines have not moved much, though I did run some Cav out to recap towns and then run them back into my lines. It’s much to dangerous to attack now, which is another thing that is a bit odd about the game, its impossible to imagine Stalin accepting a pause like this, he would certainly be ordering counter attacks. Of course Stalin had a larger army with a greater replacement rate.

I am screenshotting the fronts, because Saper222s pause has allowed me to do something that I was thinking would be impossible until T18, which is start organizing the fronts and filling them out for the Winter. You can see that Western an Kalinin are both full (in fact a little over, but I am still tweaking.) The other fronts will be filled out as the game progresses. It’s pretty clear Saper thinks he is in very good shape, but I think it’s a huge mistake to let an opponent recover like this.

The Red Army is up to 4.2 million men (+.1 million), 36000 guns (+500) 2355 tanks (+250), and 6673 planes (+150). In contrast the Germans have gained about 100 tanks and 100 planes, but no men or guns. The Soviets are up to 252 divisions or brigades, which is a full 20 more than last turn. Of course most of the new ones are shells, but I also see a substantial increase in the number that are at 80, 90 and even 100%. 3000 members of the Red Army drank themselves to death by accident, none were killed by the Germans this turn.


One other effect of the pause, I am going to pull a complete front out of the line to rest and gain moral, as well as pulling specific army groups from individual fronts.

In the center I am building up airbases that may shift the air war casualty rates to 2 soviet for one german, at least they are configured in a way that has done that on other fronts.

Final question that I have been unable to find an answer to, is a motor pool of 200k (72k) good? 70 vehicle factories making 700 vehicles, with a couple of dozen recently moved.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

Final question that I have been unable to find an answer to, is a motor pool of 200k (72k) good?

200k seems fine under the circumstances. These numbers will drop dramatically during the blizzard. Just make sure you don't build the wrong stuff in 42. Basically, you should build cavalry and sappers for your blizzard offensive. During 42 I would build nothing but infantry. Forget about tank and mech corps. I would even set a lot of tank brigades to static. That gives you extra trucks and APs. Once you build infantry corps fill them up with sappers. Wait with tank brigades until you have survived 42. Infantry grinds the Axis down!

[Toidi]

Sapper stopped as he could not supply the troops anymore. If he cannot supply them, they lose morale. That is the major reason for not getting any further. Well done for preserving your army reasonably well - if you can keep it like that in '42, you will win this game.

I think you need start to think about the blizzard offensive now.

During blizzard, I expect that your biggest enemy will be the length of your supply lines. I expect Sapper to fall back slowly in the south, so you will not be in contact much and will not pocket anything - his stop line will be probably around Voronezh - Stalino. You will not be able to hold south in '42 (and probably only delaying will be the option), but you need to regain as much ground as you can, so you can have more space to fall back. I expect that your progress in south will be constrained by your supply and how quickly you can repair rail (which is 1 hex per turn, mostly). If he is falling back fast and your infantry cannot really keep up, to gain ground quickly, use cavalry divisions (not corps). It is very important to be in contact with all the units at the end of each turn to ensure max attrition losses on Germans (if they break contact in their turn, you will suffer less attrition - but contact in the end of your turn affect attrition of Axis troops)

Sapper will most likely stay in the north, but in the north on marshes and heavy forests, when Germans are in lvl 3 forts, attacks are very difficult even with all the blizzard bonuses; also there are Finns which will meddle if things will get tough. As such, I would not count on major gains in the north, and move the majority of units from the north to middle (and possibly south). You will not get Leningrad during blizzard and sapper does not have any further objectives in the north - so you just need to make him man the front for maximum attrition. Of course, if you can attack, attack - that will lower morale of sapper units, but the morale will drop for most units below NM anyway due to automatic morale losses. Once it is below National Morale, each successful attack often results in multiple morale points increase, which means that the army will get back to National Morale quickly. Sure, if you can drop the morale during blizzard more, it is good as attrition losses increases - and the casualties during fighting add up too.

It leaves middle as the major offensive area. My guess is that Sapper will likely want to fight for Moscow. The terrain there seems to be defensible and he may try to dig in and make a stand, especially in January. However, you can still attack there if you mass your best troops. Think that cavalry are your tanks during blizzard. As for tactics, I would suggest to use 2 groups of cavalry corps in a pincer movement, aiming at encircling the Germans. In analogy to tanks, I would use the cavalry mostly as exploiting troops, with infantry doing as much heavy fighting as possible. In December cavalry corps will be immune to attack (unless things will change in the next beta) and in January they will be tough to attack (currently you need 3 full stacks of infantry needed for uncertain outcome).

During blizzard you need 10-20 divisions encircled to give you decent chances for surviving '42. Obviously the more the better. The other goal is to get space and manpower centres. Problem is that most cities will not repair before Sapper will get them back in '42 - but still you need the land which you can trade for time in '42.

The most devious strategy Sapper may employ is to fall back everywhere (by say 15-20+ hexes altogether till end of January) combined with quite massive sending troops to Germany to prevent morale losses. In such case you still need to encircle whatever is possible, but that will make your '42 as tough as it gets (as a 90 morale infantry division is 12+ cv, whereas 70 morale division is 7-8 cv - it does make a tremendous difference in combat and in attrition losses).

On a separate note, you are winning air war (well done). If you can keep 3:1 losses in fighters vs fighters, you win in the long run. If you get 5:1 losses in fighters you are losing... Of course, at the moment the balance may appear slightly shifted as you lost your MIGs from Moscow early, but 3:1 is still not bad.

As for '42, I guess your strategy will be to lose as few troops as possible while preventing the auto-victory conditions to trigger. If you can survive '42 with less than 100 divisions encircled, I am quite sure you will be able to win the game later on.