8MP Team Game - The Axis team

[M60A3TTS]

So did this one end?

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

So did this one end?

I believe so. We tried to continue, and then Chaos45 accused TheDude357 of cheating, although we went back and reproduced the turns results. I doubt we will ever see him in the forums again. The thing to do was not volunteer in the first place rather than destroy any hope of the game continuing. Then a sort of subterfuge spun in Discord ending any hope of Telemecus participating in new team games.

I think "PBM" Team games requires a great deal of connection between the members of the team and the opponents to work. You are looking at a very long term relationship. It takes maturity and an appreciation for the journey rather the "win." Once EvK quit things fell apart pretty quickly.

[EwaldvonKleist]

View from the other side of the front:

Excellent AAR with fine graphics and some good jokes between the AAR posts.

When the game started around 2 years ago, the two teams mirrored the historical situation quite well: The Axis team was lead by an experienced player with great management skills (okay, that point is a bit ahistorical) with subordinates who were not all veterans, but played a solid T1 and good follow up turns. Axis team communications appeared to be regular and detailed.

The Soviet team on the other hand was composed of more or less complete rookie (including me). Communication broke down often and was scarce, a coherent strategy not really existent and micromanagement barely happened. Rather than blame Hortlund for that, I do think that it was part of his roleplay vision for the game.

As was to be expected given the conditions of the GC1941 and the differences in the team structure, the first half of the summer of 1941 was a series of defeats. Somehow, the Soviet Union, using its immense recovery abilities, managed to survive until the Blizzard in a very difficult situation, but not completely without options. At least one possible recruit turned down the offer to join the Red Army, stating that he "is not into hopeless missions". However, with M60 a veteran commander came on board in late summer and the team became more efficient.

During the snow time before blizzard in 1941, I was in command of the central front and had to hold a very weak Tula front, feared encirclement and repeatedly requested permission from M60 to retreat. No offensive took place and the stand fast order turned out to be the correct decision, because the Axis declined to use the opportunity. Apparently, the Axis mobile forces were already on the way to the winter quaters in T22? tm.asp?m=4250683&mpage=11&key=

I noticed the Axis built allot of fortified zones. I am sceptical of their use. They draw resources away from combat units and start with low morale and experience, probably taking considerable losses to attrition. I doubt that the bonus for artillery in fortified zones (if existent?) is significant enough to justify the investments. Probably a different doctrine, firepower (Crackaces) vs. raw CV (me).

The Blizzard saw a stand fast defence of the Axis. Initially, I planned to attempt ZOC locks and encirclements in the Tula area, but M60s orders called for a focus on Guards farming. The Axis forward defence limited the Soviet land gain considerably, but helped Guards farming and allowed us to trade losses at a good ratio.
Interestingly, AGC counterattacked much. It was a win-win situation for both sides, as the Axis side could celebrate routed units, while Soviets were encouraged by the good loss ratios. I usually tried to put well rested rifle brigades in the front line to encourage counterattacks on them, as the fatigue level has a huge effect on losses.

After the Blizzard, I personally was very sceptical about the outlook of the game, and was surprised when the snow turns did not end with immediate doom and massive encirclements. Although I of course do not know the detailed Axis situation at this time, I think splitting the armoured attack into two not directly mutually supporting operations was a mistake. At least my greatest fear as the Centre commander was a Panzerballe biting of small chunks of units in a "pacman" strategy, while I welcomed the frontal pushing-back assault in the Tula area.

With snow becoming mud and then clear weather, the situation became increasingly difficult due to the growing mobility of the Axis forces and the slow growth of the Soviet manpower count. That was the situation when I resigned, because I was burned out with WitE at this point and university became more demanding.


Throughout the game, the Axis side heavily used strategic bombing and constantly attacked the Soviet air force. Due to their very good management, initial Soviet non-action in the air and snowball effects, Axis air superiority was secured until summer 1942 and beyond, a major + for them.
If playing the solo, I use spam bombing by Soviet bombers, which causes huge losses, something that simply did not happen here, saving the Axis several dozen k of manpower losses until T50 alone. Not to speak about the operational advantages of air superiority.

The non-air related strategic bombing strategy had mixed results. Armaments and HI bombing was without real effect, as the USSR had an armaments surplus since January 1942 IIRC and never ran short of supplies.
AFV factory bombing effect depended on the equipment type. Strategic bombing simply has zero effect until it actually causes a shortage. So from retroperspective the Axis bombing should have focused on Soviet fighters, light tanks an manpower (preferably small cities along static fronts).


If the above sounds overall critical it is because repeating all the positive things is a bit useless and I am interested in the Axis rationale behind the decisions, and of course it is clearly the Axis side's game to lose here with the Soviets needing luck, strong play and Axis mistakes and iron nerves to turn around the game.

Thanks to the Axis team as a whole for the game, during the entire time I played, you were fine opponents!

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

View from the other side of the front:

Excellent AAR with fine graphics and some good jokes between the AAR posts.

When the game started around 2 years ago, the two teams mirrored the historical situation quite well: The Axis team was lead by an experienced player with great management skills (okay, that point is a bit ahistorical) with subordinates who were not all veterans, but played a solid T1 and good follow up turns. Axis team communications appeared to be regular and detailed.

The Soviet team on the other hand was composed of more or less complete rookie (including me). Communication broke down often and was scarce, a coherent strategy not really existent and micromanagement barely happened. Rather than blame Hortlund for that, I do think that it was part of his roleplay vision for the game.

As was to be expected given the conditions of the GC1941 and the differences in the team structure, the first half of the summer of 1941 was a series of defeats. Somehow, the Soviet Union, using its immense recovery abilities, managed to survive until the Blizzard in a very difficult situation, but not completely without options. At least one possible recruit turned down the offer to join the Red Army, stating that he "is not into hopeless missions". However, with M60 a veteran commander came on board in late summer and the team became more efficient.

During the snow time before blizzard in 1941, I was in command of the central front and had to hold a very weak Tula front, feared encirclement and repeatedly requested permission from M60 to retreat. No offensive took place and the stand fast order turned out to be the correct decision, because the Axis declined to use the opportunity. Apparently, the Axis mobile forces were already on the way to the winter quaters in T22? tm.asp?m=4250683&mpage=11&key=

I noticed the Axis built allot of fortified zones. I am sceptical of their use. They draw resources away from combat units and start with low morale and experience, probably taking considerable losses to attrition. I doubt that the bonus for artillery in fortified zones (if existent?) is significant enough to justify the investments. Probably a different doctrine, firepower (Crackaces) vs. raw CV (me).

The Blizzard saw a stand fast defence of the Axis. Initially, I planned to attempt ZOC locks and encirclements in the Tula area, but M60s orders called for a focus on Guards farming. The Axis forward defence limited the Soviet land gain considerably, but helped Guards farming and allowed us to trade losses at a good ratio.
Interestingly, AGC counterattacked much. It was a win-win situation for both sides, as the Axis side could celebrate routed units, while Soviets were encouraged by the good loss ratios. I usually tried to put well rested rifle brigades in the front line to encourage counterattacks on them, as the fatigue level has a huge effect on losses.

After the Blizzard, I personally was very sceptical about the outlook of the game, and was surprised when the snow turns did not end with immediate doom and massive encirclements. Although I of course do not know the detailed Axis situation at this time, I think splitting the armoured attack into two not directly mutually supporting operations was a mistake. At least my greatest fear as the Centre commander was a Panzerballe biting of small chunks of units in a "pacman" strategy, while I welcomed the frontal pushing-back assault in the Tula area.

With snow becoming mud and then clear weather, the situation became increasingly difficult due to the growing mobility of the Axis forces and the slow growth of the Soviet manpower count. That was the situation when I resigned, because I was burned out with WitE at this point and university became more demanding.


Throughout the game, the Axis side heavily used strategic bombing and constantly attacked the Soviet air force. Due to their very good management, initial Soviet non-action in the air and snowball effects, Axis air superiority was secured until summer 1942 and beyond, a major + for them.
If playing the solo, I use spam bombing by Soviet bombers, which causes huge losses, something that simply did not happen here, saving the Axis several dozen k of manpower losses until T50 alone. Not to speak about the operational advantages of air superiority.

The non-air related strategic bombing strategy had mixed results. Armaments and HI bombing was without real effect, as the USSR had an armaments surplus since January 1942 IIRC and never ran short of supplies.
AFV factory bombing effect depended on the equipment type. Strategic bombing simply has zero effect until it actually causes a shortage. So from retroperspective the Axis bombing should have focused on Soviet fighters, light tanks an manpower (preferably small cities along static fronts).


If the above sounds overall critical it is because repeating all the positive things is a bit useless and I am interested in the Axis rationale behind the decisions, and of course it is clearly the Axis side's game to lose here with the Soviets needing luck, strong play and Axis mistakes and iron nerves to turn around the game.

Thanks to the Axis team as a whole for the game, during the entire time I played, you were fine opponents!

First and foremost, thanks to the Soviet team! I througly enjoyed the game while it lasted! One can see that EvK is a formidable opponent!

A couple of comments in response ...

For the forum -- The combat resolution is quite complex. The 2x3 AAR now on the second page of this posting covers this system quite extensively. However, it is worth mentioning some fundamentals. Combat starts with a beginning CV and leadership die rolls, which results in the first adjusted CV. Depending on odds the attack can stop right then and there with a "scout" result. Then the combat system proceeds that each squad and device engages a random squad or device according to a decreasing range from the longest Attacker device. Think of each type of squad or device as a small colored bead, Infantry squad blue, a 105mm gun red, a 150mm gun purple etc. The engine picks one of these devices at random but what is picked is highly influenced by the number of type of squads/devices. If there are 100 purple beads and 1000 blue beads -- a blue bead is 10 times more likely to be picked. Now think a 64 Crayola crayon box of colors grouping different devices and squad types with many random selections within a unit or combined units. This process continues with the range decreasing to the next range band until some magical threshold is reached or the infantry engage. There are three combat results of interest destroyed, damaged, and disrupted. The first two results are quite obvious but the disrupted result is very interesting. A disrupted unit no longer contributes to combat. Pushing the defense back or forcing the offense to a held result does not take killing or damaging -- it only takes disrupting enough devices or squads. Finally, if combat reaches the very end point the total effective CV of both sides are compared and a combat result posted. The real crux of this system takes an understanding of both CV and firepower to master optimizing attacks and defensive situations.

Now to add to EvK's observation. I am a firepower guy. It was my contribution to the team. Fundamentally before I start an attack I try to understand the makeup of the target hexes along with possible committed reserves. Then I commit the right SU's to maximize effect. With the Soviet cavalry it was committing quad 20mm to maximize ROF and maximum number of squads engaged because the cavalry units disrupt easily once engaged on the attack. On the other hand armor units full of KV1's and T34's require 88mm that are in LW mixed and heavy flak units. In general Soviets in the open are dealt with 105's but I like 150 howitzers because of ROF. This logic extends into a very lengthy discussion but I hope it adds to EvK's observation. Although the system does not match the right device to the right target every time -- you can maximize the likelihood this might occur.

There were thoughts for attacks in the Tula area. IN fact one attack got started but the Southern commander needed resources to rescue a salient that crossed the Don. Resources being diverted happens more than once and in a couple of cases at a most inopportune moment. In this AAR I mention rigging up a true gambit and then have the rug pulled out from under me. The last Gambit really worked, but the Soviets unfortunately resigned and we never saw the whole strategy play out.

One thing for the forum is the thought on the use of forts. One advantage of forts on the defense is that you can attach SU's directly to the fort unit. I have played with this a bit in test cases. I have found that the fort level protects the tubes from harm (mostly) while the fort level adds to the accuracy of the attached devices. At level 3 this advantage can be devastating on a number of dimensions. There is no consideration for "real life" ranges or "real life" accuracy given a range. A HEAT round has a range and really does not improve much in real life with registered fire, but in WITE this is not the case. So a 150mm HEAT round engaging a T34 using the fort bonus is very likely to hit and if it does that is one dead tank. From an infantry side disruptions are far more likely. So (3) 12 tube mixed art SU are going to disrupt 96 squads, possibly more, depending on how combat goes. That is a real CV changer as these squads will not contribute towards the final effective CV.

The broad advance rather than the "pacman" approach was an intentional decision. Fundamentally, we figured we could destroy the Soviet army in the Summer. A look at turn 54 shows the jump off points to do so with units surrounded. Once I secured the use of multiple Panzer armies that were not going to be pulled away -- the most important objective was: 1) secure the Oka-Para river line; 2) secure advanced rail line for airbases; and, 3) secure jump off points for securing Tambov and key rail lines to make the Soviets rail LOC as untenable North to South as possible. That mission was accomplished on turn 54.

One thing about how the center advanced. One can put pressure on an objective and threaten isolation forcing a retreat. This was an overall operational consideration for AGC. Attack in places and show armor that could potentially isolate units in a "Pacman" type attack. The Soviets often obliged by retreating from the objective.

Finally (in this post) strategic bombing and routing units. I might offer that strategic bombing does not yield instant results. Rather, focusing on certain targets accumulates over time in opportunity costs. Ten tanks not produced over 100 turns is 1000 tanks not produced. The argument might be that it does not matter as in 1944 the Soviets have so much stuff they can disband units. We did not feel that would be the case given the OOB. This leads to why to rout units. The instant battle result was pretty favorable to the Soviet. The German's were taking battle casualties and winter attrition. But, the next logistics phase told another story as devices and squads take die rolls for additional damage. Then there is the cost of morale and being unready for some number of turns. In our minds that was a long term benefit.

It was one hell of a match up!

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Finally (in this post) strategic bombing and routing units. I might offer that strategic bombing does not yield instant results. Rather, focusing on certain targets accumulates over time in opportunity costs. Ten tanks not produced over 100 turns is 1000 tanks not produced.

Strategic bombing is a pipe dream now that Recon spamming has been nerfed. Recon spamming was the PRIMARY reason the strategic bombing campaign took off in this game.

[Telemecus]

Recon spam had virtually no impact at all.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: TELEMECUS

original: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Finally (in this post) strategic bombing and routing units. I might offer that strategic bombing does not yield instant results. Rather, focusing on certain targets accumulates over time in opportunity costs. Ten tanks not produced over 100 turns is 1000 tanks not produced.

Strategic bombing is a pipe dream now that Recon spamming has been nerfed. Recon spamming was the PRIMARY reason the strategic bombing campaign took off in this game.

Recon spam had virtually no impact at all.

As I said, “Strategic bombing is a pipe dream now that recon spamming has been nerfed”. As for not having no impact at all. Maybe that was the case early in the game before M60 took over. But after M60 took over why then are these two photos posted in the Soviet AAR against your team with 69 & 75 recons on a hex? That TO ME is proof enough of the recon spamming to fatigue Soviet fighters in this game. There is litterly no reason to fly this many missions of recon other than to fatigue Soviets. Once fatigued enough you fly bombers unmolested which can be seen in many of the AAR’s photos. I am just glad this has been taken out of the game now.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

I can only guess what was being searched for if it wasn’t to fatigue Soviet fighters.

[EwaldvonKleist]

@Crackaces: Your writing about firepoer for sure made me more aware of the topic. Although I would argue it is more significant for the Soviet side which relies more on attrition by frontal combat. But also good to consider for the Axis side too.

Re routing units, from my feeling/knowledge having a unit routed is not too much of a problem because it can recover in the rear without contact to enemy forces. But I did not conduct detailed tests. I was also very satisfied with loss ratios even if you include damaged equipment, as the Axis side suffered too from attrition. The definitive answer will need more tests.
Re morale, I am not sure if the morale hit from routing is that much worse than from retreating. As we operated close to NM most of the time it was not much of a factor.

Thanks for the detailed reply Crackaces!

Strategic bombing is a pipe dream now that Recon spamming has been nerfed. Recon spamming was the PRIMARY reason the strategic bombing campaign took off in this game.

Recon spam had virtually no impact at all

I disagree with both views.

I think strat bombing can very well be more than a pipe dream without recon spamming and the factory expansion buff, especially as there was further improvement in the pipeline by the Axis team, I do not like such vague allusions usually but it is the inventor's honour to post it and that is not me. It does not require complete air dominance as in this game for strategic bombing to be successful, and be it to keep the air force occupied during mud turns or for training purposes. It will have to stop at some point when the Sovs have crushing fighter superiority everyhwere, but it takes time to get to this point.


However, although it is definitely not the primary reason for the air war imbalance in this game, recon spam did have an effect. I recall several occations where it helped to fatigue Soviet fighters to the point where they did not respond to attacks, or did so without much effect.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

@Crackaces: Your writing about firepoer for sure made me more aware of the topic. Although I would argue it is more significant for the Soviet side which relies more on attrition by frontal combat. But also good to consider for the Axis side too.

Re routing units, from my feeling/knowledge having a unit routed is not too much of a problem because it can recover in the rear without contact to enemy forces. But I did not conduct detailed tests. I was also very satisfied with loss ratios even if you include damaged equipment, as the Axis side suffered too from attrition. The definitive answer will need more tests.
Re morale, I am not sure if the morale hit from routing is that much worse than from retreating. As we operated close to NM most of the time it was not much of a factor.

Thanks for the detailed reply Crackaces!

Strategic bombing is a pipe dream now that Recon spamming has been nerfed. Recon spamming was the PRIMARY reason the strategic bombing campaign took off in this game.

Recon spam had virtually no impact at all

I disagree with both views.

I think strat bombing can very well be more than a pipe dream without recon spamming and the factory expansion buff, especially as there was further improvement in the pipeline by the Axis team, I do not like such vague allusions usually but it is the inventor's honour to post it and that is not me. It does not require complete air dominance as in this game for strategic bombing to be successful, and be it to keep the air force occupied during mud turns or for training purposes. It will have to stop at some point when the Sovs have crushing fighter superiority everyhwere, but it takes time to get to this point.


However, although it is definitely not the primary reason for the air war imbalance in this game, recon spam did have an effect. I recall several occations where it helped to fatigue Soviet fighters to the point where they did not respond to attacks, or did so without much effect.

I can pretty much shut down or cause great casualties to any Strategic bombing a German does after turn 4 of the game. I can say that with confidence without the Recon spamming to fatigue Soviet fighters. I have no illusions or allusions this can be accomplished even if losing close to 7k airframes on turn 1.

[EwaldvonKleist]

A massive area has to be covered by the Soviets to prevent strat bombing of the full range of attractive targets. Possible after investment in many new fighter units, but a window of opportunity for the Axis is there. And even then, strat bomb defence draws resources from other fields, giving it indirect effect. Be it less fighter coverage for the front, APs invested in fighters instead of IL2s and and and.
Note I do not argue for strat bombing to be war winning on its own, but that it has more than the pipe dream zero effect.

[ledo]

Yeah but you also said you could stop the strategic bombing/telemecus' red airforce strategy cold if they wanted to when there was recon spamming, in fact you said it would be easy. I believe you could, I figure you being a very skilled player could deal with any of these problems, knowing the intricacies of the engine and best possible method for maintaining and building up a red airforce and adapting to various strategies. My only point is, it's really moot whether or not you know you could make the strategy ineffective. The point is probably whether it would be effective against a less than optimised use of the red airforce (which 95% of players on this forum will encounter/achieve when they play a game).

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: ledo

Yeah but you also said you could stop the strategic bombing/telemecus' red airforce strategy cold if they wanted to when there was recon spamming, in fact you said it would be easy. I believe you could, I figure you being a very skilled player could deal with any of these problems, knowing the intricacies of the engine and best possible method for maintaining and building up a red airforce and adapting to various strategies. My only point is, it's really moot whether or not you know you could make the strategy ineffective. The point is probably whether it would be effective against a less than optimised use of the red airforce (which 95% of players on this forum will encounter/achieve when they play a game).

Yes, I could stop it with or without the recon spam which I agree is a moot point since I know I can AND the exploit is gone for good now in the current patch. I am, and have always been thinking of the other 95% of the players that would have encountered/achieve results against such a strategy. I am 100% glad this exploit has been taken out of the game just for them.

And before anyone goes there I am all for and commend the outside thinking of coming up with this. But to me it was way over the top in my book no matter how many times you sugar coat it. I am glad it is gone for good.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

A massive area has to be covered by the Soviets to prevent strat bombing of the full range of attractive targets. Possible after investment in many new fighter units, but a window of opportunity for the Axis is there. And even then, strat bomb defence draws resources from other fields, giving it indirect effect. Be it less fighter coverage for the front, APs invested in fighters instead of IL2s and and and.
Note I do not argue for strat bombing to be war winning on its own, but that it has more than the pipe dream zero effect.

It isn’t as big of an investment as you think. Along with Soviet factories only being in certain key locations. Also not to mention AA through the roof to boot and and and.

I never argued that strat bombing to be war winning. I am saying it is a pipe dream if you think you are going to achieve the results that was done in this AAR if you are playing someone that is competent with Soviet Air.

[ledo]

You don't need to bold the exploit I get it. Not really related to my point, but yeah I get it. My point is the fact that you have no illusions you can stop it is irrelevant, since you could stop it before and so it was really a non-sequitur to point out that you can stop it now that it's easier. The question is, is it still useful and to what extent can it still have an impact? I see that you and EvK agree on that point that it will be useful to some extent but not game winning. So I guess that answers that.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: ledo

You don't need to bold the exploit I get it. Not really related to my point, but yeah I get it. My point is the fact that you have no illusions you can stop it is irrelevant, since you could stop it before and so it was really a non-sequitur to point out that you can stop it now that it's easier. The question is, is it still useful and to what extent can it still have an impact? I see that you and EvK agree on that point that it will be useful to some extent but not game winning. So I guess that answers that.

Quote, “You don't need to bold the exploit I get it. Not really related to my point, but yeah I get it. My point is the fact that you have no illusions you can stop it is irrelevant, since you could stop it before and so it was really a non-sequitur to point out that you can stop it now that it's easier.”

My answer is in my last post, please read again. If you like me to bold that section I can for you ;-P

Quote, “The question is, is it still useful and to what extent can it still have an impact?

Against lethargic &/or inexperienced players in current state of game is my take on it.

[ledo]

Quote, “You don't need to bold the exploit I get it. Not really related to my point, but yeah I get it. My point is the fact that you have no illusions you can stop it is irrelevant, since you could stop it before and so it was really a non-sequitur to point out that you can stop it now that it's easier.”

My answer is in my last post, please read again. If you like me to bold that section I can for you ;-P

Answer to what? That wasn't a question. But if you can bold the part where you make it clear why its relevant that you specifically are still able to stop a tactic you already could stop before, now that it's gotten easier to stop, go ahead.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: ledo

Quote, “You don't need to bold the exploit I get it. Not really related to my point, but yeah I get it. My point is the fact that you have no illusions you can stop it is irrelevant, since you could stop it before and so it was really a non-sequitur to point out that you can stop it now that it's easier.”

My answer is in my last post, please read again. If you like me to bold that section I can for you ;-P

Answer to what? That wasn't a question.

No you didn’t but the answer is still there for the bolded quote. Ledo, or should I call you Telemecus???? Anyway this is off point and I am done. I won’t answer the updated edited version that has been posted. Thank you for the small chat Telemecus, I mean Ledo

[ledo]

We are not the same person. But the wild accusations are amusing.

[ledo]

In case you feel unconvinced;

Telemecus was the one who invited me (briefly) to the 2by3+ game, where Neogodhobo can attest to the fact that I am not really of the same calibre player.

EvK has received spreadsheets from both Telemecus and myself. The problem for me in using Tele's spreadsheets is that he appears to use Open Office while I use excel.

I can also show you snippets of mine and Tele's discussions about tracking spreadsheets.

But hey, maybe your conspiratorial mind sees me running some grand scam, where I am for some unknown reason doubling up my identity, inviting myself to games that I could just join any time, and then playing worse than I ever have. Using two different types of spreadsheet programs to throw people off the scent while having two-way doctored conversations with myself at erratic intervals over many months.

Stay classy, HLYA.