2x3+ Team Side Game - BOTH SIDES

[Beria]

The problem is though we had a bad summer 41, and the blizzard has not made up for it since. I think Mamluke put it very well themself.

Mamluke, Soviet South Commander
the Red Army has made a remarkable recovery and was able to push hard consedering the situation.
however, the truth is that our army as remain below 4.7 million men and 49K guns since the winter despite taking "reasonable losses" by Soviet standards
-
in one of my games , I played my winter offensive well, however as it it March, the Germans lost the 1st winter penalties and went on the offensive. he caught the red army with its pants down and the Soviet front in the South disintegrated. and I had about 5 Million men, a much stronger army then in this game.

KenchiSulla, former Axis South Commander
Good thing we know that even with moderate losses the soviet army is not growing
They might get up to 5 million summer '42
That is not enough

As a result we have had to choke the ToEs of many units as we do not have the manpower to fill them up. This has led to the army of ants phenomenon without a core of really good units able to take the Wehrmacht on.

Mamluke, Soviet South Commander
might as well talk about it now. I set the 70% ToE for rifle divisions as a desperate measure. but I can see it doesn't work very well since they end up with 60% or less. manpower is not as bad as it looked, we should change to average to 80% ToE
just to let you know, I'm keeping all Rifle Brigades at 80% since they are manpower efficient and to be cold, they are expandable, good rifle divisions are NOT!

Some of the units created some think are not useful anyway. One Soviet commander in 1942 commented

built a shitload of ski brigades which don't have any experience the first winter, so they are next to useless.
...
would have been better off by spending ap on more tanks, not infantry. We have a current shortage of over two million men, with too many infantry heavy units which we will never be able to fill out. Our new builds need to be low manpower units,tank and artillery, and infantry corps formation will release men back into the pools.
...
amazing amount of cavalry corps, cav squads are limited now, and maintaining them, nevermind rebuilding if lost, is now near impossible.
...
The russians don't do well in this game by building a historical russian army of low toe ants- they do well by focusing on the guards infantry corps, loaded with tank support, backed by artillery divisions.
...
We currently have more t34 in the pools than in units.
The only way to get the tanks into the army is to build tank battalions, and to be patient. They will upgrade to regiments on their own and when attached to the new infantry corps are a powerful addition.
...
should have done more construction and rr consruction units. They help get up fort levels for defence which is critical. Our fort levels everywhere are very low, few construction units to assist and overloaded commands hinder fort building too. And if we do get on the offence, their rail conversion will be especially needed. The only way to make up for the extra territory that must be regained, is to convert rail quickly and keep the truck pool healthy. A truck shortage results in lower movement points, something not everyone realizes.
...
In 42, the german rail is all caught up and ants and open ground only leads to more now unaffordable manpower losses.

Added to this we have a relatively low number of arms factories (236)- an intentional decision as commented before. [Note: and something that would not be discussed in an AAR as something we would want secret from our opponents, but it was published in many different threads in matrix forums before the author was banned - but I have to commend my Soviet team mates for deciding to continue with the game anyway] It means now we have no bank of arms points at all and a long time before it look like we will start a turn with any. This means there will be a long delay before we start building the Red Army 2.0 One new soviet team member commented

a terrible armaments shortage after blizzard, it is ok now, but that's because we don't have any manpower to build much and have done some disbanding.

Time for Plan B?

Neogodhobo, Soviet Supreme Commander
Send Vodka's and showgirls along the lines as well

Darojax, Soviet Centre Commander
I'll send them some political officers?
THey work wonders for motivation

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Beria



The problem is though we had a bad summer 41, and the blizzard has not made up for it since. I think Mamluke put it very well themself.

Mamluke, Soviet South Commander
the Red Army has made a remarkable recovery and was able to push hard consedering the situation.
however, the truth is that our army as remain below 4.7 million men and 49K guns since the winter despite taking "reasonable losses" by Soviet standards
-
in one of my games , I played my winter offensive well, however as it it March, the Germans lost the 1st winter penalties and went on the offensive. he caught the red army with its pants down and the Soviet front in the South disintegrated. and I had about 5 Million men, a much stronger army then in this game.

KenchiSulla, former Axis South Commander
Good thing we know that even with moderate losses the soviet army is not growing
They might get up to 5 million summer '42
That is not enough

As a result we have had to choke the ToEs of many units as we do not have the manpower to fill them up. This has led to the army of ants phenomenon without a core of really good units able to take the Wehrmacht on.

Mamluke, Soviet South Commander
might as well talk about it now. I set the 70% ToE for rifle divisions as a desperate measure. but I can see it doesn't work very well since they end up with 60% or less. manpower is not as bad as it looked, we should change to average to 80% ToE
just to let you know, I'm keeping all Rifle Brigades at 80% since they are manpower efficient and to be cold, they are expandable, good rifle divisions are NOT!

Some of the units created some think are not useful anyway. One Soviet commander in 1942 commented

built a shitload of ski brigades which don't have any experience the first winter, so they are next to useless.
...
would have been better off by spending ap on more tanks, not infantry. We have a current shortage of over two million men, with too many infantry heavy units which we will never be able to fill out. Our new builds need to be low manpower units,tank and artillery, and infantry corps formation will release men back into the pools.
...
amazing amount of cavalry corps, cav squads are limited now, and maintaining them, nevermind rebuilding if lost, is now near impossible.
...
The russians don't do well in this game by building a historical russian army of low toe ants- they do well by focusing on the guards infantry corps, loaded with tank support, backed by artillery divisions.
...
We currently have more t34 in the pools than in units.
The only way to get the tanks into the army is to build tank battalions, and to be patient. They will upgrade to regiments on their own and when attached to the new infantry corps are a powerful addition.
...
should have done more construction and rr consruction units. They help get up fort levels for defence which is critical. Our fort levels everywhere are very low, few construction units to assist and overloaded commands hinder fort building too. And if we do get on the offence, their rail conversion will be especially needed. The only way to make up for the extra territory that must be regained, is to convert rail quickly and keep the truck pool healthy. A truck shortage results in lower movement points, something not everyone realizes.
...
In 42, the german rail is all caught up and ants and open ground only leads to more now unaffordable manpower losses.

Added to this we have a relatively low number of arms factories (236)- an intentional decision as commented before. [Note: and something that would not be discussed in an AAR as something we would want secret from our opponents, but it was published in many different threads in matrix forums before the author was banned - but I have to commend my Soviet team mates for deciding to continue with the game anyway] It means now we have no bank of arms points at all and a long time before it look like we will start a turn with any. This means there will be a long delay before we start building the Red Army 2.0 One new soviet team member commented

a terrible armaments shortage after blizzard, it is ok now, but that's because we don't have any manpower to build much and have done some disbanding.

Time for Plan B?

Neogodhobo, Soviet Supreme Commander
Send Vodka's and showgirls along the lines as well

Darojax, Soviet Centre Commander
I'll send them some political officers?
THey work wonders for motivation

A very informative debate. The Soviet players are very aware of their relative weaknesses. Is the German appreciation of Soviet status close to the mark? And what of the Soviet appreciation of Axis strength?

PS. The Commissars can shoot a few to encourage the others...

[joelmar]

ORIGINAL: @Beria

but I have to commend my Soviet team mates for deciding to continue with the game anyway

Yes kudos to the Soviet team.

ORIGINAL: @Beria

A truck shortage results in lower movement points, something not everyone realizes.

IMO, it's better to build infantry than tank units to defend and keep supply delivery low... so I understand this must all have been a big dilemma.

ORIGINAL: @ancient Soviet commander

The russians don't do well in this game by building a historical russian army of low toe ants- they do well by focusing on the guards infantry corps, loaded with tank support, backed by artillery divisions.

Interesting remark and a big question: better to have less units of better quality, or more units of lesser quality for the Soviets. And if that remark is true, doesn't it put a big break on the idea that the total manpower in a Russian OOB is itself a big indicator of how well the Soviet army can resist?

[joelmar]

@Zorch

A very informative debate. The Soviet players are very aware of their relative weaknesses. Is the German appreciation of Soviet status close to the mark? And what of the Soviet appreciation of Axis strength?

Since turn 38 when I got in the game as Axis South, we have been aware of those Soviet problems.

[tyronec]

This was to make sure we banked as many arms points so that there would be a pool at the end of blizzard with which to rebuild the infantry divisions.

Can you give any estimate for the numbers, so for example if you had 100k German manpower in the pool after the Blizzard how many armaments would it take to top up infantry divisions with them ?

[Beria]

ORIGINAL: joelmar

The russians don't do well in this game by building a historical russian army of low toe ants- they do well by focusing on the guards infantry corps, loaded with tank support, backed by artillery divisions.

Interesting remark and a big question: better to have less units of better quality, or more units of lesser quality for the Soviets. And if that remark is true, doesn't it put a big break on the idea that the total manpower in a Russian OOB is itself a big indicator of how well the Soviet army can resist?

I think the comment is a reaction to too few good units. Too many good units and the vehicle pool cannot support them and you get the opposite reaction.

From what I understand manpower and vehicles were the choke points up to v1.11.03. So you would want an army of just over 8million to provide a sufficient unit density to stop any German exploitations and also advance into Germany and 20 (?) tank corps which you could use to counterattack and in the end advance.

If what has been said about vehicles not being a constraint anymore then perhaps you could create 100+ tank corps and manpower would not matter. But if that is not quite right you would need to get some kind of unit density, and too little manpower would stil make that impossible?

[Bitburger]

Interesting remark and a big question: better to have less units of better quality, or more units of lesser quality for the Soviets. And if that remark is true, doesn't it put a big break on the idea that the total manpower in a Russian OOB is itself a big indicator of how well the Soviet army can resist?

It is often quoted that the russians need an oob of 6 million to hold their ground, but there is a big difference of 6 million in an army of 500 low cv, low experience divisions short on armaments,and an army of 6 million in 160 high cv corps. The russians at this point had no manpower but plenty of tanks, so tank brigades made sense at the time. better to lose a 1000 men in a tank brigade than thousands in a infantry unit.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Bitburger

Interesting remark and a big question: better to have less units of better quality, or more units of lesser quality for the Soviets. And if that remark is true, doesn't it put a big break on the idea that the total manpower in a Russian OOB is itself a big indicator of how well the Soviet army can resist?

It is often quoted that the russians need an oob of 6 million to hold their ground, but there is a big difference of 6 million in an army of 500 low cv, low experience divisions short on armaments,and an army of 6 million in 160 high cv corps. The russians at this point had no manpower but plenty of tanks, so tank brigades made sense at the time. better to lose a 1000 men in a tank brigade than thousands in a infantry unit.

Excellent analysis! I do think there is a threshold where there is not enough AFV's/and or people. I propose that this is an abstract concept. Like P(x) of a systems failure. The P(x) represents the probability of failure, but does not state what exactly fails. Manpower < 5M after the 1st winter means something is going to give and each game has decisions how that plays out.

[Bitburger]

The tank is nothing more than a manpower multiplier in combat, and the germans never leave their tank pools flooded unless in blizzard.
The soviets are wasting a precious advantage by leaving t34 idling in the pools. I know when i played germans, it drove me crazy to see tigers sitting in the pools!

[Beria]

surprise was seeing how little importance to command capacity that was shown.The armies and fronts all overloaded with manpower depleted units. All one ends up with is very low cv

A final point should be made about chain of command and leaders. A lot of the best leaders had been appointed to front commands which very overloaded - making them effectively useless. They could also be split up in armies up and down the front further reducing the ratings of the higher commands and making ground support from air in the same front very difficult. Some serious administrative reorganisation was needed to make contiguous fronts without too many or too few armies in each one and without overloading any.

[joelmar]

ORIGINAL: Bitburger

It is often quoted that the russians need an oob of 6 million to hold their ground, but there is a big difference of 6 million in an army of 500 low cv, low experience divisions short on armaments,and an army of 6 million in 160 high cv corps. The russians at this point had no manpower but plenty of tanks, so tank brigades made sense at the time. better to lose a 1000 men in a tank brigade than thousands in a infantry unit.

I think there are also the trucks and fuel problems to add to the mixing pot of parameters when assessing the ideal 2.0 Red Army, at least that seems to be true to a great extent in 1.12?

@Beria

A final point should be made about chain of command and leaders. A lot of the best leaders had been appointed to front commands which very overloaded - making them effectively useless. They could also be split up in armies up and down the front further reducing the ratings of the higher commands and making ground support from air in the same front very difficult. Some serious administrative reorganisation was needed to make contiguous fronts without too many or too few armies in each one and without overloading any.

Which is another great point for the importance of micro-management.

@Beria

If what has been said about vehicles not being a constraint anymore then perhaps you could create 100+ tank corps and manpower would not matter. But if that is not quite right you would need to get some kind of unit density, and too little manpower would stil make that impossible?

That point is still very obscure to me. 1.12 seems to use more organic trucks, but from what I observe up to now, there seems also to have less supplies and fuel available in city depots because of the new rail limitations on supply, so probably less supplies to haul explains that now there are no pb of trucks for either side. I have a game started in 1.12, but it's not far enough to give conclusive data on the German side.

But in our game now switched to 1.12, the total number of trucks available overall to the Germans is the same as it was, so I guess it must be true for the Soviets too? And I don't see in our truck pools such a big difference in the ratio between avail in pool/needed. But if that is an indicator of what would happen with trucks in a game started with 1.12, I'm not sure that what has been said about the vehicle constraints (even if true) on supply means that the Soviets can build more tank corps ad nauseam because they still have a low cap on trucks surplus and might end up in truck shortages anyway.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: tyronec

This was to make sure we banked as many arms points so that there would be a pool at the end of blizzard with which to rebuild the infantry divisions.

Can you give any estimate for the numbers, so for example if you had 100k German manpower in the pool after the Blizzard how many armaments would it take to top up infantry divisions with them ?

Well a 39 rifle squad is 10 men and takes seven arms points. So to put 100k into rifle squads only you would expect 70k arms points. The rifle squads are the ones that get the worst hit during the blizzard and are one of the cheapest to replace. But they are only maybe a fifth of the manpower of an infantry divisions. There is no selective element by element max ToE setting for infantry divisions so you also have to get replacements for its organic artillery and other elements that are more expensive too. So for every 10 men in a rifle squad you would need up to 40 others often with more expensive equipment. But if you assume they are the same, that would still be 350k arms points to put 500k into replacements of which only 100k would be rifle squads.

At the end of blizzard we had about 450k in the manpower pool and 300k arms points in the bank. Over the next few turns replacements are going to flood in to our infantry divisions and the OOB will indeed increase by close to half a million. The arms point bank was almost used up to do this, but we did find quite soon afterwards we could start to lift the cap off ToEs for artillery and have never had an arms points shortage since. And since then the issue has only been manpower shortages and never arms points shortages. So having rebuilt infantry divisions to a sufficient ToE to make them resilient from going unready or depleted it makes sense for the Germans to prioritise units needing lots of arms points and few men - like artillery.

[eskuche]

Are ground elements lost proportionally in fighting? If you took a survey of 10 infantry divisions before and after blizzard, would rifles and artillery both be at x% and (x-y)% TOE?

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: eskuche

Are ground elements lost proportionally in fighting? If you took a survey of 10 infantry divisions before and after blizzard, would rifles and artillery both be at x% and (x-y)% TOE?

No. Rifle squads are damaged or destroyed proportionately far more. I do not know what is the mechanic or why. Perhaps the foot soldiers were the ones more exposed to the elements and so were the guys with frostbite or hypothermia?

Whatever it is by the end of blizzard when you look at infantry ToEs element by element the rifle squads are noticeably lower in their ToEs than the others from blizzard fighting.

(BTW the British had the same thing from roughly July 1944 onwards - a constant shortage of riflemen compared to the other arms. And with British manpower pretty much exhausted they had to extensively start retraining other types of soldier to join ordinary infantry squads from then onwards. Britain was the only major power to see its ground forces OOB shrink in the last year of the war. And everytime a division was disbanded its artillery and so on had to be made into infantry replacements for other divisions.)

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: eskuche

Are ground elements lost proportionally in fighting? If you took a survey of 10 infantry divisions before and after blizzard, would rifles and artillery both be at x% and (x-y)% TOE?

No. Rifle squads are damaged or destroyed proportionately far more. I do not know what is the mechanic or why. Perhaps the foot soldiers were the ones more exposed to the elements and so were the guys with frostbite or hypothermia?

Whatever it is by the end of blizzard when you look at infantry ToEs element by element the rifle squads are noticeably lower in their ToEs than the others from blizzard fighting.

(BTW the British had the same thing from roughly July 1944 onwards - a constant shortage of riflemen compared to the other arms. And with British manpower pretty much exhausted they had to extensively start retraining other types of soldier to join ordinary infantry squads from then onwards. Britain was the only major power to see its ground forces OOB shrink in the last year of the war. And everytime a division was disbanded its artillery and so on had to be made into infantry replacements for other divisions.)

Britain also decommissioned a lot of warships to free up manpower.

[joelmar]

@Telemecus

No. Rifle squads are damaged or destroyed proportionately far more. I do not know what is the mechanic or why. Perhaps the foot soldiers were the ones more exposed to the elements and so were the guys with frostbite or hypothermia?

Yes, that makes sense. Artillery could be kept back most of the time and get more opportunities of finding better shelters. They were also much smaller teams.

[tyronec]

Britain also decommissioned a lot of warships to free up manpower.

One of my teachers from school (who taught me chess) was in GCHQ, don't know what he was doing there but he was a very intelligent and thoughtful guy with a background in classics so am sure it was something interesting. Anyway, towards the end of the war he joined the infantry.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: tyronec

Britain also decommissioned a lot of warships to free up manpower.

One of my teachers from school (who taught me chess) was in GCHQ, don't know what he was doing there but he was a very intelligent and thoughtful guy with a background in classics so am sure it was something interesting. Anyway, towards the end of the war he joined the infantry.

I find that shocking. Although I hope at the very least it was as a volunteer against official opposition.

I am always shocked by the story of Henry Moseley who would probably have been one of the greatest physicists of his generation and yet was shot by a sniper in Gallipoli. Ok maybe code breakers were not as required by then end of the war. Roy Jenkins though did not get decommissioned from GCHQ to the infantry - and he got into GCHQ only on a recommendation. At the very least there was plenty of staff work they would have been much better at than many who were placed in staffs, sometimes as favours. I know some may also accuse me of being an intellectual snob. But at least they made things of immense value to others.

[Beria]

But now

Neogodhobo, Soviet Supreme Commander
Hell is coming

[Telemecus]