Chaos(SHC) vs Pelton-T131- Game Over-Soviet victory.

[chaos45]

T131- lower south

[chaos45]

T131- Final OOB- however with the pockets if we had continued German OOB would have dropped significantly.

[chaos45]

T131- final losses- again final pockets not liquidated but was alot of losses.

[chaos45]

T131- Notable Soviet units----As you can plainly see the Guard Cav Corps did most of the heavy lifting for the Soviet Army.

Total Strength of Soviet Mobile forces T131-
25 Tank Corps- all tank/mech corps concentrated in 9 tank/guard tank armies and 1 regular Army.
6 Mech Corps
25 Cav Corps- concentrated in 5 shock armies

[chaos45]

T131- Top Soviet Fighter Aces---for some reason they liked their Lagg-3s so much they refused to upgrade ever lolz.....

[chaos45]

T131- Top soviet bomber grp.

[chaos45]

T131- Well thats all Folks, was a very good game and was much cross talk between me and Pelton despite how much we argued and mayhaps insulted each other lol

Pelton as German High command sees no reason continuing after this last pocket battle as im only a couple VP away from auto win in April so he figures and I agree why waste another month playing out a forgone conclusion.

Many people know my opinions on the soviet from my comments but here are some numbers of what my soviet army looks like under the hood-
321 Sapper Regiments in this army
276 Artillery/Rocket/mortar battalions and regiments on top of my artillery divisions/BDEs---these guys are key to winning close battles

As the Soviet player dont underestimate how much a good selection of support units and a decent commander can sway a battle even in the early war days when your getting your face crushed. The simple act of your brave comrades stopping a couple hasty attacks can save a disaster from being an even bigger one lol. Also in LW these support units become gold to winning hasty attacks and regular attacks as they add alot of weight of fire to assaults and shift the final CV alot.

As if your Army HQs dont move they have a chance to send these SU to support even hasty attacks and this due to how low your CV is from a hasty can mean victory or defeat alone. All the small things add up, things you do very early in the campaign matter in the long run and can equal a win or a loss as the game goes one. As they add up and compound quickly....as Pelton says the snowball and its very true.

I started our game with an army plan and I kept to that plan even in the face of almost defeat in 1942. Luckily for me for reasons on both sides the plan worked and my army turned into a massive death machine by the middle of 1943. With as many moves and choices that are made in this game is always alot of if thens/what ifs. Think me and Pelton both played a very good game and both made mistakes at key points. Luckily for me the soviet had more troops to lose so is alittle more forgiving of mistakes that cost armies than the German forces which have a very thin margin for win, and a small margin to really get a draw once the soviet steam roller gets going.

My plan----was to be offensive at every chance I got and concentrate on Cav corps at least 20+ enough for all shock armies...then to form tank/mech corps to the limit my truck supply could handle which ended up being around 30 tank/mech corps--31 to be precise as I posted earlier. This mobility combined with a very heft amount of support units, artillery, and air power managed to conduct blitzkrieg operations in style from late summer 1943 to when we called the game.

Was a great game and I really enjoyed it, lets see what version .09 brings and I'll decide if I pick up a new match. Best of luck to all the ongoing games [8D]

[HardLuckYetAgain]

So after all the debates on the forums about loses not being historical during combats, what comments about the final loses for both side can be extrapolated? (should say, "semi final" since I under stand some men still in pockets etc but close enough for the question and not at the end of the war. To me seems high and we are only in 1943!).

ORIGINAL: chaos45

T131- final losses- again final pockets not liquidated but was alot of losses.

[loki100]

well done to both of you, interesting to follow.

Do think that Pelton was badly caught out by the failure of his usual 'one hex back' strategy?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: loki100

well done to both of you, interesting to follow.

Do think that Pelton was badly caught out by the failure of his usual 'one hex back' strategy?

1. swapping bugs were big issue, don't think things would have fallen apart as quickly.
2. I played allot of games into 43-45 and he is the first to have any real pockets of any size and the first to master the Russian logistics system.
Only other Russian players to come close was TDV and Sapper. Most players grind and never really play the game as Germans = T34 ball.
3. His stategy is very risky 41/42 but has a huge pay off 43+ if you can survive. Most players play it safe. There is no real counter to what he does other then to pull back 2 hexes per turn and defend near Warsaw summer 44.

My 1 huge mistake was the panzer ball golden rule in 42. I had 5 PD's in north.
I had a chance at a huge pocket (13 tank/cav Corps + 24 other divisions )in early 42 that would have wiped allot of his better mobile units - which would have caused a snowball effect for the rest of the summer.
5 more PD seal that pocket from the inside and out side.

My big mistake and his new build for Russian Army is why he won.

[chaos45]

Yep was a very close to major disaster that end result I was able to get almost all of my units out of.

However this is again where I say Soviet Cav Corps are the key you can see in my screenshots from this page:

tm.asp?m=3871507&mpage=6&key=

I was able to get enough movement out of my southern shock army Cav Corps they were able to move up and assist in breaking his outer ring and support the pocket break out--Soviet infantry/guard units would never have had the movement to do this. Also the many tank Corps outside the pocket were able to move and support the northern part of my break out so he couldn't re-seal easily from either side. You can noticed I clamp his supply lines full of Zoc's on both sides of his encirclement. All this stuff adds up to the effect all of my key forces escape and when he did close the bag it was only worthless infantry formations I was mostly leaving behind to zoc/slow his supply lines.

I learned a lot and I do mean a lot about the game system and how it works during this play through. The key lesson/take away anyone should take from this AAR is massed armor works, and if at any point your enemy gets a chance to mass all his armor in one area you better have extremely strong forces/defensive positions to blunt it or give up space. Because a normal defense line even with some reserves cannot blunt/stop 20+ tank corps/divisions from a massive breakthrough.

Since there is no hex delay for combat once the enemy can make a 3 hex breach with a ton of armor its effectively game over for your forces in that area and this is true for both sides in the game. As only the initial breach units will need to decisively attack and everyone else just needs MP and maybe to make some hasty attacks...esp if you have an entire tank army in one stack for a HA-50+ CV tank corps stacks all under unified command can actually successfully HA decently strong German units out of the way [:D]

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: chaos45
As to AFV loss rates---even with winning almost every combat losses seem to be about 7-8:1 Soviet to German AFV....this is honestly within historical realms so currently I have no issue with it. The germans do seem to take very low AFV losses even when being badly defeated, their loss rate probably needs slight increase as otherwise short of massive encirclements the Soviet player will most likely never reduce German AFV totals.

Not really. In 43 and 44 the ratio are much lower. As soon germany starts to retreat the tank losses sore.

This is the official total losses in 43 and in 44, per Armored Champions by Zaloga. Same thing happens on the western front. Highly mobil warfare doesnt do germans any favors. From a strategical point of view.
The weakness in the logistical system plays heavily in in losses, destroyed by own crew losses, lack of spare parts, lack of fuel tactically and limited recovery vehicles and so on.

Total writes offs 1944 SU Tank losses total 16.900
Total writes offs 1944 RU SU losses 6.800

Total 23.700

Dec 43-Nov 1944 in the East

Panzer total write offs 5.056
Stug all versions 3.667
PzJg all version 1.347

Total 10.070



In 43 RU SU and tank total write offs are 22.400, respectily 16.495 tanks and the rest SUs.

German Tank writes off alone for tank alone, not counting stugs and pzjgs, are 6.362.

If u look at the month of aug-dec and adds feb all month of german retreats the losses are over 4000 or roughly twice as much as the other 6 months which incls Kursk and both have 1 periode of mud.

So in reality in 43 onwards overall the tank(incl stug/pzjg/SU permanent losses are in a 2-2.5 ratio range on the Eastern front.

Just saying,
Rasmus

[chaos45]

Actually compared to historical for basically the Start of 1944 both sides are low.

To make historical we would both have to take approx. twice as many losses by the end of the game as we have so far.

I haven't looked in awhile but for historical again almost all these numbers are still under some debate:
Germans should be 7-8M+ range for KIA/WIA/POW
Soviets should be 15-20M+ range for KIA/WIA/POW

An again these would just be estimates...and if you count all wounded much, much higher. This would be more like for KIA/POW/permanently disabled wounded.

-Walloc-

Good info on the tank losses I was going more off exchange rates over the entire war--also think my comment states the Germans should lose more when they lose badly. Currently the model is protecting even routed/retreating German tanks from losses.

[Walloc]

Doesnt disagree that overall the losses are low and too low on both sides. U talked about that 7-8 to 1 ratio tank losses is "within the historical realm". Just saying depending on latitude as what that constitudes. 7-8 to 1 ratio is around 3 times the historic rates once germany starts to retreat in total writes offs.
Ratio is independant of the "low" losses issue. If u double the losses on both sides as of now ratio would still be the same.

The "removeal" off retreat losses isnt particular historic when it comes to this. Yes it help create the snowball effect which doesnt do the game favor, but reality is that is when the germans really lost AFVs. At leased significantly more than the in the more static parts / limited german advances of the campaigns.

"Good info on the tank losses I was going more off exchange rates over the entire war--also think my comment states the Germans should lose more when they lose badly. Currently the model is protecting even routed/retreating German tanks from losses."

Indeed see also my commnet in Loki's AAR. When i see a pz div with 500 ish AFVs being retreated twice and off the bat loses a combined 5 AFVs permantly. I know of the loathing of the retreat losses in the community. Just poiting out this is infact historic time for losses. This is when the german through their logisitcal vows tended to have higher losses than in pitched battles. With the current system there doesnt seem much way to replicate these facts like the fall of 43 campaign. Not saying the game should automaticly do this, but if it model wise, isnt really possible to replicate it in similar circumstances then i think the model is off.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

[timmyab]

Well done Chaos, great win.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Doesnt disagree that overall the losses are low and too low on both sides. U talked about that 7-8 to 1 ratio tank losses is
"within the historical realm". Just saying depending on latitude as what that constitudes. 7-8 to 1 ratio is around 3 times the
historic rates once germany starts to retreat in total writes offs.
Ratio is independant of the "low" losses issue. If u double the losses on both sides as of now ratio would still be the same.

The "removeal" off retreat losses isnt particular historic when it comes to this. Yes it help create the snowball effect which
doesnt do the game favor, but reality is that is when the germans really lost AFVs. At leased significantly more than the in the
more static parts / limited german advances of the campaigns.

"Good info on the tank losses I was going more off exchange rates over the entire war--also think my comment states the Germans
should lose more when they lose badly. Currently the model is protecting even routed/retreating German tanks from losses."

Indeed see also my commnet in Loki's AAR. When i see a pz div with 500 ish AFVs being retreated twice and off the bat loses a
combined 5 AFVs permantly. I know of the loathing of the retreat losses in the community. Just poiting out this is infact historic
time for losses. This is when the german through their logisitcal vows tended to have higher losses than in pitched battles.
With the current system there doesnt seem much way to replicate these facts like the fall of 43 campaign. Not saying the game
should automaticly do this, but if it model wise, isnt really possible to replicate it in similar circumstances then i think the model
is off.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

Quarter----------Soviet KIAs----------German KIAs----Soviet to German KIA Ratio

Q3 1941----------280k-----------------160k-----------1.75
Q4 1941----------290k-----------------110k-----------2.64

Q1 1942----------450k-----------------130k-----------3.46
Q2 1942----------280k-----------------80k------------3.50
Q3 1942----------490k-----------------130k-----------3.77
Q4 1942----------350k-----------------90k------------3.89

Q1 1943----------550k-----------------110k-----------5.0
Q2 1943----------175k-----------------40k------------4.38
Q3 1943----------680k-----------------160k-----------4.25
Q4 1943----------490k-----------------120k-----------4.08

Q1 1944----------510k-----------------125k-----------4.08
Q2 1944----------290k-----------------80k------------3.63
Q3 1944----------450k-----------------170k-----------2.65
Q4 1944----------290k-----------------125k-----------2.32

I agree Russia suffered its worse losses ( a blood bath )in 1943 when we are talking - the game has a hard time modeling these huge 4-1 loses to
Russia and they were "winning" battle after battle driving back Germany so the current 2by3 retreat lose model simply does not work and never has.

The game is based on retreat loses and not combat ratio's (training, troop exp, tactics, command and control ect).

This is same problem 2.0 will suffer from. So the only fix is to lower losses across the board.

morveal has a new "fix" hes tring to get the ratio's right - then he can up loses across the board.

Player losses will never be as high as historical but the combat ratio's should be in line FIRST then ajust from there.

2by3 never gets ratio's right so they are forsed to lower combat loses across the board or game falls apart in late 43 because as we all know from dozens of past AAR's the combat ratio in the past is 2 to 1 from 42-45 which is crazy off from historical

These #'s are from Trey in WitE dev area.

[chaos45]

An as we know Pelton those numbers do not include Axis Allied losses at all---which makes the odds look much worse for the Soviets than reality.

Romanians/Hungarians/finnish/Slovakian/Italian forces were also fighting and dying in this campaign from the very start this chart includes none of their losses. Also I don't believe HIWI losses are included either--which would amount to another chunk/addition in losses over time.

Q4- 1942/ Q1- 1943---tons of Romanian/Hungarian/Italian losses not included is why it makes the Germans look good when in all reality losses were closer to 1:1 when axis allied included. This would continue clear until basically the end of the war.

As Romanian/Hungarian units were heavily engaged on the Eastern front until late 1944 for Roms/ and end of war for Hungarians as Hungarian divisions were still fighting for the germans at the end.

Its why your chart is garbage/basically useless information.

In a nutshell the average exchange rate with all axis-allied included should be about 2:1 over the course of the war we have had this discussion and disproved this chart numerous times. At the best of times the Germans did about 3:1 and at their worst with axis allies losses included it drops below 2:1 so average is right around 2:1 to 2.5:1 exchange rates at best.

Yes in certain battles exchange rates were higher but overall with attrition and small scale actions over around 1,000 miles of front for a 4 year period the exchange rate about 2:1 Soviet to Axis.

[ericv]

Congratulations chaos. That went really fast in the end. Can i ask how big your airforce was? How many fighters/fb's/ Tac bombers/ LevelBombers /rec.? were you able to keep a lot of SB and PE rec planes in the air? I always end up losing them early in the war, forcing me to use the U2 Recce planes en masse.

Did you use any level bombers for german unit bombing? How about U2vs?

[chaos45]

My end airforce was all fighters and tactical bombers- IL2s and variants. Basically mix wsa 4-6 fighter groups per air army, 15-26 Tactical bomber grps for most air armies, 1-2 recon, 1 long range transport. Alittle variation but from mid 1943 on that was about the make up in my main areas of action.

I did have 1 Li-2 transport unit doing night drops to the partisans in each VVS, and usually 1-2 recon units per VVS.

Early in the game you will burn a lot of recon trying to keep track of the panzers. When you can and feel comfortable don't recon every turn. Basically the soviets don't build near enough good recon planes so you have to be conservative in how you use them when the lines aren't moving a lot.

I didn't use many of the bi-plane recon at all- to short range for most of the recon work I wanted to do....so just got very selective in when I did recon after summer 1941/summer 1942 where they saw a lot of use tracking where the German panzer formations were.

Early on in later 1941-1942 I had a lot of fighters to oppose the German airforce---at that point my air armies were more like 9-18 fighter grps 9-15 bomber grps, 1 transport, 1-2 recon.

So you have to adjust based on your game and how the war is going both in the air and on the ground. In areas I really wanted to contest the air I had air armies with 27 fighter grps in 1942.

[ericv]

ok, thnks. I am gonna try a setup like that. No more focus on LB's, a bit more careful with the recon. Just 1 Li for supplying partisans. Results with Tactical Bombers are really good against anything you try to hit.

I've been fooling around with the heavy Il-4's and DB3's, DB3 losses are enormous and with no production I end up with mainly IL-4 for heavybombing, they hit sometimes with spectacular results, but it is mainly an effort in mass losses, sometimes relying on the computer to send the bomber groups, which then forgets to send an escort, also with spectacular results.. (Pe-2's and SB2 don't seem to be able to hit anything at all)
I am not quite sure if these levelbombers and the Tac Bombers disrupt the enemy in the same amount during an attack.

I also tried massing the LB's for partisan night supply runs. It works fine. but stuffing 5-6 LB groups per VVS always seemed to be overkill.

Do you also send plane factories from types you are not going to use as much (il-10, pe-2, u2vs types) to their doom, for better armament point reallocation?

thanks again.