Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post here your best AAR
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Flaviusx »

I'm a skeptic of the sub war and the sub bug hardened that skepticism into a conviction so, yeah, a big Allied naval investment was not necessary here. I actually wish I could disband naval units. And free up the logistics.

Until and unless someone proves this otherwise, I very much believe that all the allies need to do to handle the sub threat is tech up escorts and build a whole bunch of them to cover the necessary routes with some left over to handle losses. That's it. No air, no new carriers, none of it. 43+ escorts will shred subs. In this very game whenever I sent my subs to raid the Arctic convoy route they got hammered bad just by escorts and had to spend months in port repairing the damage.

Subs are imo a paper tiger right now. Not cost effective. I built maybe 3 the entire game and maybe that was too many.

The strategic bombing route, while hugely expensive and a major commitment, at least has a payoff if you are willing to commit to it early enough and accept delays in other areas. It's a valid strategy, with costs and benefits. I don't see the sub war ever matching this.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
IslandInland
Posts: 1189
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:54 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE
Contact:

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by IslandInland »

Thanks for this AAR and the others in the forum. I am enjoying reading them very much and they are the main reason I decided to buy the game a few days ago. I really like the fact this game's scale is one below that of the Strategic Command games which seems to impart much greater strategic flexibility for the player.

Just an aside but between pages 4 and 8 none of the posted screenshots would show up for me even when trying different browsers.
Beta Tester for:
War In The East 2 & Steel Inferno Expansion
War In The West Operation Torch
Strategic Command American Civil War
Strategic Command WWII: War in the Pacific
XXXCorps
1941 Hitler's Dream Scenario for WITE 2
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: IslandInland
Just an aside but between pages 4 and 8 none of the posted screenshots would show up for me even when trying different browsers.

Glad you're enjoying the read.

Hmm, that's odd. All the images are embeded into the post and hosted by Matrix's server once uploaded. No off site hosting site used here. My guess is it is probably due to some security setting in the browser that turns off images or something.

Jim
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Flaviusx »

More moderate fighting in the East, I am cautiously working my way towards levering the Soviet out of Bryansk and then north of there to take the river line. I may or may not attempt Tula once this is accomplished.

Both sides continue to eyeball each other in the Central Russian open country.

Most of the actual fighting is being done by the luftwaffe now, rather than the panzerwaffe. Maybe half of the panzers in the east are actually fighting. The rest are either digging in or on rail lines with standby orders to deploy out of Russia in case of emergency. I end this turn with 3 panzers on standby. I am not willing to push the Eastern front at this stage. If the Soviet wants to come forward, then I will meet him. But otherwise, the theater is winding down to a sitzkrieg and some minor adjustments of the front lines.

I send two more infantry divisions to the west that had been sitting next to Spain. Iberia is looking like a no go. Continued diplomatic sniping has brought Portugal down to 79%, still in the danger zone, but even so. At any rate, the timing is no longer favorable here. By the time the Allies activate Portugal and set themselves up to roll Spain, it will be past summer in my estimation. They may still elect to do this...but it will be a 44 campaign now. They won't be able to knock out Spain fast in mud and snow, anyways.

The Italians save up enough production to crank out a third alpini corps.

German has 3 more infantry corps in the queue and one more fighter but the rest is all trucks and AA. I'm deferring buying the panzers until later. Germany has over 300 production in the bank right now and I'm just going to let that accumulate for a while and buy myself 2 more panzer corps and one more HQ. That will zero out my logistics.



Image
Attachments
russia2.jpg
russia2.jpg (163.77 KiB) Viewed 458 times
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Jim D Burns »

30 July 1943

Not much to report this turn. Germany pounds two units from the air in Russia. One is forced to retreat the other is guarding Bryansk and is not attacked on land.

In Africa I'm going to send an airforce back down from England and see how it does vs. the Italians over Sicily. I think a large enough force can be deployed there given the recent revisions to the stockpile numbers now, so we shall see.

I took a closer look at the middle east and I have 15 port levels at greater than 20 hexes from Arkana and 8 port levels between 11-20 hexes from Arkana. I would need 6 garrisons to cover those ports, so these are the numbers I come up with:

15 port levels = 300 stockpile. Subtract 30 for garrisons and halve what is left, this gives 135 to help feed an attack force.

8 port levels = 160 stockpile. Subtract 30 for garrisons and 3/4ths of what remains is available, this gives 97.5 to help feed an attack force.

So in total the middle east can support units worth 232 or less were I to attack Turkey. This is not an unreasonably small sized force, so I think it can be done. The problem is I would also need to make two landings in the north to cut off any German attempt at reinforcement.

When I looked at the ports that might be close enough to feed such an invasion, all three are garrisoned and not guaranteed to fall. But then I saw it.

Akhisar is not garrisoned, and I believe it is a supply source hex. It is close enough to the beach that it could be taken right away. so an invasion in that area is very doable. You would have to have a lot of land power positioned ahead of time to move into Turkey right away, and I simply am not set up for it.

I could get set up by spring of 44, but that would mean scratching any landing that year in France, so I think I'll forgo Turkey this game. But I would like to try it in my next allied game, perhaps setting up to invade in 1941 when Germany needs every single unit it has in Russia and won't be able to send a dozen or more units to defend Turkey. He can flood Turkey with units in this game if he wants to.


Image
Attachments
30July.jpg
30July.jpg (177.08 KiB) Viewed 454 times
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
At any rate, the timing is no longer favorable here. By the time the Allies activate Portugal and set themselves up to roll Spain, it will be past summer in my estimation. They may still elect to do this...but it will be a 44 campaign now. They won't be able to knock out Spain fast in mud and snow, anyways.

Never really wanted to go through Spain, just wanted the VP location. Being my first human game I want to try an Overlord. Lots of lessons to be learned I'm sure and now that we have revised numbers on supply usage, it might not be as bad as I was thinking before.

Anyway will be fun to try it even if I get thrown into the sea. Just not sure I can build a large enough airforce to pull it off by June 44, so may be late 44 or later before I'm ready to go.

Jim
User avatar
Hoyt Burrass
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:27 pm
Location: Montgomery, Alabama

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Hoyt Burrass »

HI Jim,

Your Turkey ploy will get tougher with the next update....The rail connection at Istanbul is going away (it wasn't completed until 1973) and Turkey will become a scorched earth country (the rail gauge was different and in poor repair).
Roll Tide
User avatar
IslandInland
Posts: 1189
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:54 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE
Contact:

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by IslandInland »

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
ORIGINAL: IslandInland
Just an aside but between pages 4 and 8 none of the posted screenshots would show up for me even when trying different browsers.

Glad you're enjoying the read.

Hmm, that's odd. All the images are embeded into the post and hosted by Matrix's server once uploaded. No off site hosting site used here. My guess is it is probably due to some security setting in the browser that turns off images or something.

Jim

The entire Matrix forum went offline for a short time a few days so maybe the screenshots not showing up has something to do with that.

Beta Tester for:
War In The East 2 & Steel Inferno Expansion
War In The West Operation Torch
Strategic Command American Civil War
Strategic Command WWII: War in the Pacific
XXXCorps
1941 Hitler's Dream Scenario for WITE 2
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Jim D Burns »

Things have grown very quiet as the allies slowly build up for Overlord, with an occasional German attack or two in Russia, but nothing major. Nothing really to report on. I'll chime in again when something interesting happens.

Jim
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Flaviusx »

September 10, 1943. Tula falls. I am three hexes away from Moscow. But it is not happening. Too late in the year, and I'm not willing to commit the necessary forces to do it. This has been a very grinding, deliberate advance with limited forces. The luftwaffe is really carrying the Wehrmacht in the Eastern Front. I have a pretty good defensive line here, aside from the central Russian area. The Soviet may try his luck here in the winter.

The Red Air Force came out to play to try to forestall this attack on Tula and got murdered. I just got 44 escort fighters this last turn. 24 range fighters only slightly less capable than interceptors. I have two of these in the east, and two in the west, and the rest of the fighter force is interceptors.

The last two panzer corps corps go into the build queue this turn, due to arrive at the end of March 1944. Panzerwaffe ended up at 14 mobile corps total in this game. The loss of one of my paras freed up enough extra logistics to allow for an additional build. (I am not replacing that para.) I am down to 13 logistic points. Saving them. Don't really need an extra HQ, I think I'm good with what I have and even have a spare in Berlin if need be.

2 more infantry corps reinforce the Western Front.

Image
Attachments
russia3.jpg
russia3.jpg (154.25 KiB) Viewed 454 times
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Jim D Burns »

10 September 1943

Germany continues his one or two hex per turn push towards Moscow, taking Tula. With just 3 hexes to go, I'm not sure I can hold him before rains set in. He is stretching his lines though, so perhaps I'll counter-attack if he continues moving north. I have a pretty strong mech force just to the east of his advance.

In Africa my airforce has arrived and I strike all three Italian bomber fields within range multiple times each this turn achieving good results. I'll continue to hammer him and see how the airforce holds up.



Image
Attachments
10Sep.jpg
10Sep.jpg (198.27 KiB) Viewed 456 times
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Flaviusx »

September 24, 1943. With mud around the corner and the campaign season coming to a pause shortly, OKH decides to force the pace a little in the East. Very heavy fighting north of Bryansk, Germany wants to straighten out the line and take the woods area between Tula and Bryansk.

German mech forces a breakthrough, and with with the aid of a paradrop seals a pocket around an infantry army and obtains a surrender. A Soviet mech is shattered in this fighting as well.

The Axis is pretty well exposed to counterattack here, but I felt like gambling, I can afford to lose units at this stage. I may not even build that paratrooper if it dies and replace it with another panzer corps.

Image
Attachments
Russia4.jpg
Russia4.jpg (184.7 KiB) Viewed 457 times
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Jim D Burns »

24 September 1943

In a last big push of the campaign season, Germany blasts into the Soviet lines west of Moscow and basically shatters the front. Had Germany done this all season, I have no doubt the Soviets would have collapsed this year, as their manpower currently stands in the low 20s.

The Soviets pray for rain, as they simply lack the power to do anything against the higher tech Germans.

In Africa Italy attacks the US airforce in their turn and suffers 6 losses to my 3. In my turn a repeat of last turns bombings appears to have hammered the Italians as this turns losses screenshot shows.

Though I am a bit confused what the numbers actually mean, since I no way caused 41 strength loss to the one panzer corps I forced to retreat. Also as far as I can tell I traded losses with Italy 3 for 3 and scored a lot of airfield hits. So perhaps efficiency loss is mixed in with strength loss on this page? But the US should have lost some efficiency in those air battles too. If the loss types are combined, it's confusing as hell.

Image
Attachments
24Sep.jpg
24Sep.jpg (161.85 KiB) Viewed 456 times
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Flaviusx »

Maybe the loss screen includes losses from my turn as well as yours? It is a little confusing.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Maybe the loss screen includes losses from my turn as well as yours? It is a little confusing.

It's supposed to be for your turn only. Check it at turn start and see.

Jim
GenSlack
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:00 am

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by GenSlack »

Jim,
I find the impotence of the Red Army disturbing. If the so-called "balanced" nature of the game means a cautious/judicious Axis player like your opponent can just grind the Red Army down with impunity, then that's not good.
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Jim D Burns »

8 October 1943

Rain in Russia holds the Germans to a single hex being retreated. But that puts German panzers only two hexes from Moscow.

In North Africa the entire Italian airforce pulls back to the mainland. Waiting for this to happen, the allies commence their first invasion of the war. Four allied fleets encircle southern Sardinia to guard the land armies aboard transports off the coast.

With only two or perhaps three enemy tactical air at most within range, I think the lions share of the forces should survive to land next turn. The allies have four carriers and a fighter that can reach 3 of the fleets within range, so I'm hoping the air attacks aren't too bad.

Allied bombers in Africa pound the German unit ashore causing 6 hits. By the end of next turns bombing I'm hoping we can cause similar damage and then force him to retreat and take Cagliari by storm.

We shall see, this is my first attempted landing vs. a human opponent. Needless to say things may go horribly wrong here. However it turns out it should be good practice for Overlord.

I should mention, I thought about landing on Sicily as it appears most air power can't reach, but I wanted to practice an opposed landing, because no way am I going to have air superiority for Overlord.

Image
Attachments
8October.jpg
8October.jpg (178.96 KiB) Viewed 457 times
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: GenSlack
Jim,
I find the impotence of the Red Army disturbing. If the so-called "balanced" nature of the game means a cautious/judicious Axis player like your opponent can just grind the Red Army down with impunity, then that's not good.

Agreed, I've taken my concerns to the main forum in the Strategic Bombing thread I posted.

Jim
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Maybe the loss screen includes losses from my turn as well as yours? It is a little confusing.

I started my last turn with four German land losses already listed. I think they were due to partisan attacks that were already in the combat log. So perhaps there were a lot of attacks in the turn that showed 41 land losses?

Jim
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Flaviusx »

More rain across the board.

As a result the Regia Aeronautica is unable to score a single hit on the allied landing force. Germany transfers more assets to Italy.

The Regia Marina sorties and suicides itself against the northernmost battlegroup and gets very much the worst of it...but sinks the XII corps. The allies still have three units to put to shore. I can only hope the rain makes this difficult for him to do.
WitE Alpha Tester
Post Reply

Return to “AAR”