Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post here your best AAR
User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 9276
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Zovs »

The losses don't look all that terrible to me and that is not what I'd call a costly victory.

Soviet ground losses = 10 and air = 35.
German ground losses = 26 and air = 15.

The ground loss is fantastic for the Soviets, the did loose more air but its not that bad.
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
Tester for WDS games
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Flaviusx »

Extremely bloody fighting both east and west. In the West, Germany roughs up 3 American infantry corps. In the East, Moscow is retaken, along with some other fighting.

This drops the oil supply down to 645. I've been trying to avoid exactly this sort of heavy fighting knowing what it would cost. But I need to buy just a little more time before mud.

Rains actually arrive in the Med this turn, otherwise I might have taken a shot down there at the British approaching the N. Italian border.

I rebuild the lost mech.

So far as strategic bombing goes, once again, flak accounts for 11 bomber losses, exclusive of any air to air combat. Not sure I agree with my opponent that strategic bombing is quite so worthless. If he can keep my production down and force the kind of heavy ground combat he did this turn, I will be out of gas in a hurry.

But he is going to have to pay a pretty penny for that result. With the old air system, he was essentially getting free shots at my oilfields. Now that my flak is actually firing at his bombers, the butcher's bill is about what it should me imo.

Image
Attachments
Russia1.jpg
Russia1.jpg (142.93 KiB) Viewed 762 times
WitE Alpha Tester
AlbertN
Posts: 4275
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by AlbertN »

This seems an exceptional game for the Axis tbh.
In my games the Allies in general are already owning the Axis bigtime in '43.
Axis oil is short since end the of Barbarossa and it never goes up. Some turns of sitzkrieg stocks up some that is smoked as soon as minor action is required. And in '43 the Soviets are advancing back pushing Germans slowly, and Allies are advancing in both France and Afrika.
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 »

22 September 1944

Germany retakes Moscow. The Soviets try to push them out again, but land units moved in to replace low efficiency units lack enough action points to launch more than a single attack.

In France the Germans launched many attacks and pushed back some units. Allied air power goes after a strong panzer division in Lille. Para drops by the US and British force the panzer to retreat north to an isolated hex on the coast and the panzer is then destroyed. I expect to lose at least 2 para units, but at least one powerful unit is taken off the board this turn.

In the south British air pounds Marseille, but rain prevents an attack. The defender is pretty trashed though so we should be able to push him out once clear weather returns.

Allied air power is trashed, losing 85 points this turn. Germany loses 40 and Italy 8.

Image
Attachments
22Sep.jpg
22Sep.jpg (164.52 KiB) Viewed 762 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
Not sure I agree with my opponent that strategic bombing is quite so worthless.

I have a choice, I can pay for repairs of my airforce and land troops or I can pay for strat bombers and land troops. I do not have enough production to pay for both strat and tactical/ground air losses. Actually with over 80 air losses this turn I won't even be able to pay for all air and land losses this turn. Strat bombing repairs would bankrupt me in no time.

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: Cohen_slith
This seems an exceptional game for the Axis tbh.

I agree, I really messed up tech by spending 2's and 3's instead of 1's and 4's for about the first 2/3rds of the game. Most allied stuff is 43 tech right now, this is hurting big time.

I also did no strat bombing before 43 and then only used it for a few months before we patched up. That allowed Germany to become very strong, far stronger than the allies should ever allow. I should have been bombing from day one.

I think these two errors are what cost the allies this game. I'm also about to add the air nerf to that list. It is looking more and more like the allies will not be able to shatter the German front. Before the nerf I was confident I'd be deep in Germany and Italy before the end of 44, now that is starting to look impossible, which means my building a huge airforce was also a mistake as it is proving to be pretty ineffectual with the new changes.

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

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by GenSlack »

what does this mean: "spending 2's and 3's instead of 1's and 4's"? and what's the rationale behind it?
GenSlack
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:00 am

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by GenSlack »

Jim,
What changes with the latest patch had the biggest negative effects on Allied airpower?
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
what does this mean: "spending 2's and 3's instead of 1's and 4's"? and what's the rationale behind it?

There is a thread in the main forum where someone did a test and proved you get very little return for putting points into a tech above 1 point. Only once you spend at least 4 points is there a significant increase in tech advancement.

So basically if you have 3 points in a tech, it still advances as slowly as 1 point and you are wasting the 2 other points in the tech. I had a lot of techs set to 2 or 3 points and thus wasted a ton of points this game.

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: GenSlack
Jim,
What changes with the latest patch had the biggest negative effects on Allied airpower?

Haven't gone through the patch notes yet to find the specific changes made. But the effect of whatever was changed has reduced ground attack and strategic attack effectiveness to a point where once 3-5 bombers could significantly change a fight to now needing the entire airforce committed to just a single fight to get similar results and even that proves to be not enough some times.

You have to realize about 2/3rds of the allied logistic cap is spent on airforce and at most I can only effect one battle a turn now, while losing massive amounts of plane strength in the process. I'm not really opposed to higher air strength losses than what the game started with (though right now it is too high I think), but I am opposed to the lack of effect when you use your planes now. They really feel useless when you are using them in game now, it's only the fact I can send so many bombers to a single hex that the odds can be shifted at all.

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

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Flaviusx »

October 6. Snow in the west except for a small band of clear weather along the riviera. I abandon Marseilles and fall back.

German panzers in the low countries counterattack and destroy two of the three allied paratroopers. The third is sent back packing at half strength. I don't even try to take back Lille. I'm starting to look a bit worn out up here. Hopefully, the snow will keep the allies down to a dull roar. He took his best shot with his paras and I don't think I will have to worry about them for a while. Shades of Market Garden.

Rain in northern Russia and snow in the south and quiet in both parts. I put in a fresh panzer corps in Moscow and rotate out the beat up one.

For the first time in a while, I'm feeling the pinch in production and cannot immediately replace the lost panzer corps. I may indeed just replace it with a mech next turn, it's been budgeted. Cheaper and faster to build.

Oil production has recovered to 33 and the pool has stabilized at 616. With bad weather closing in on all fronts, and the allied strategic bombers shot up, it looks like I'm past the worst of my fuel crisis. But it did force me to sit tight basically all summer.
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 »

6 October 1944

Mud across Russia nothing to report.

In France the US goes after a panzer corps causing heavy damage to it and forcing a retreat. I opted not to advance as the unit would be surrounded on 4 sides. In the south the British force their way into Toulon after heavy fighting.

Allied air losses this turn are surprisingly light. As far as I can tell not a single German intercept was flown and my bombers were allowed to fly unopposed. Italy did fly and the British took some hits, but overall a good turn for allies, as such light losses should allow casualties to catch up a bit (lots of bombers are in low teens in strength).

Image
Attachments
6Oct.jpg
6Oct.jpg (192.62 KiB) Viewed 762 times
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Flaviusx »

I ran down my own air counterattacking on my own turn, presumably. So they needed a break. It's pretty hard for them to pull double duty and keep up their effectiveness.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Flaviusx »

October 20, 1944. Mud in the west and east, clear in the med. No combat anywhere. Oil is up to 40 and recovering nicely.

I send a panzer corps to Northern Italy to bolster the defenses there. I may also send some of my better Italian units up there. Sicily is overdefended, the allies do not appear to have anything ready to conduct a serious invasion with in the Med, let alone fortress Sicily. If he can grab one of the major Italian cities up north that will do the job for him and force an Italian surrender.


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
October 20, 1944. Mud in the west and east, clear in the med. No combat anywhere.

What he said.

British spent the turn reshuffling units and lacked the action points to launch any assault this turn, shame to let a clear turn go, but units needed to be repositioned after the heavy fighting last turn.

The only thing to report this turn is all three major allies are now at 45 assault tech. So at least my infantry will be on par from a tech standpoint as soon as upgrades complete.

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

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Flaviusx »

Nov 3, snow or rain everywhere but Northern Russia where it is cold. No combat.

Image
Attachments
Europe1.jpg
Europe1.jpg (176.49 KiB) Viewed 762 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 »

3 November 1944

Soviets launch an attack and retake Moscow. Air losses are horrific and will take several turns to rebuild.

The US pushes back two hexes in Belgium. I tried splitting my airforce and basically had to use my strat bombers to get that little extra umpf in the second attack. That still only left me with a 2-1 and then a 3-1 attack, so I got a lucky die roll I think that forced the retreat.

Air losses are again high, but with the recent tech upgrades we manage to shoot down a lot of German air as well in both western Europe and Russia. Soviet interceptors are 44 tech (almost to 45) and the US is 43 tech. Britain has max tech interceptors now.

Rain in Italy, nothing to report on that front.

Image
Attachments
3November.jpg
3November.jpg (176.73 KiB) Viewed 762 times
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by Flaviusx »

Nov 17, mostly snow everywhere.

No attacks.
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 »

17 November 1944

In Belgium the US pushes back a strong panzer corps causing heavy damage to the unit.

In Italy the Germans have fallen back to the one hex passes and the British try their hand at the northern passage. After heavy fighting the unit is reduced to just 2 combat value showing but the hex holds.

In Russia the Soviets manage to force the retreat of a strong panzer corps adjacent to Moscow after very heavy fighting.

Air losses for the allies again exceed 80 strength in losses. The axis exceed 50 strength in air losses.

Image
Attachments
17November.jpg
17November.jpg (186.34 KiB) Viewed 762 times
AlbertN
Posts: 4275
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Burns vs. Flaviusx

Post by AlbertN »

Air has not been nerfed though - just air combat is more bloody, as it should be.

The Allies consistently outgun the Luftwaffe with more fighters (alas that happens since '39, and not since late '42 or '43 when it is legit!), and pratically it means once the bombers can fly almost undisturbed, they do hefty damage when in ground support mode.
Post Reply

Return to “AAR”