41 Campaign, tyonec (A) vs Dodo98 (v).

Please post your after action reports on your battles and campaigns here.

Moderator: Joel Billings

User avatar
tyronec
Posts: 5485
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Portaferry, N. Ireland

41 Campaign, tyonec (A) vs Dodo98 (v).

Post by tyronec »

Standard rules.
No Theatre box transfers.
No night bombing of depots.

This is my first game back to WITE2 after a 6 month break having been on the testing team for 3 years.

Strategy is for a strong push on Moscow and in the South where lies most of the low hanging fruit. Most of PG2 has been shifted to AGS; if the Soviets stand would hope for some good pockets and if they run that is a lot of VP cities to concede.
AGN will take the Baltics and then just a slow advance on Lenningrad, depending on what the Soviets leave to defend there. One Panzer corps already switched towards Smolensk, the second will follow soon.
AGC will advance as fast as the defence permits with two Panzer groups and a lot of infantry with most of the best leaders. The target is to pocket Moscow before the mud.
AGS will advance both along the coast and inland, will see how the Soviets set up in defence. Have gone for the L’Vov pocket on T1 as it gets a Panzer Corps down to Romania quickly. Maybe keeping Southern Front frozen is a better strategy, will see how this goes.

T01

Air war. Have gone for maximum damage during the air phase 3.5k and killed another 1k during the ground phase. As compared to holding off bombing airbases there are a few hundred more aircraft kills and a few hundred less pilot kills. Am not sure which works better though am not over concerned about some extra Soviet pilots on the map as they will all die easily enough as the campaign progresses.
Set up for T1 bombings was to concentrate on targets within fighter cover range. So AGN and AGC were all escorted ADs. AGS had I think 3 unescorted LB directives. Plus there were a few ADs just using 110s.

Just one attack for the whole of T1 using GS, most of the time it is not necessary. As airbases were captured moved some 109s forward for fighter cover and almost every GS Soviet aircraft got shot down. Don’t know if it is possible to get much over 4.5k Soviet kills as there is probably not many more within range. Next time will see if I can get the Axis losses down a bit but not that important as the Luftwaffe usually end up with a glut of air frames in my games.


AGN. Take the three ports. Have left as many units on the border as possible so that none of their manpower escapes. That includes forts, attack them on T1 and the Soviets recover manpower both directly from the combat and also from damaged elements recovery over time. The two ‘black’ corps are being stripped of their infantry and filled with rail repair SUs, will be using them to fill out the rail network in the Baltics rather than an FBD. After the Baltics have been taken the job of 16th and 18th army is just to tie down some Soviet units but will continue the advance if the opportunity opens up.

AGC. Just the one large pocket, hopefully it is secure but am never sure. I really don’t like doing T1 as there are just too many ways to make a mistake. One Panzer corps from PG2 transfers to PG3, the other two head South. Quite a few units out of command range, it is a mess. Have put 4th Army on Assault.

AGS. Rail line through L’Vov secured and a few pockets on the border. Have made a couple more small ones, one around Brody that doesn’t look too secure and may have to rout them out next turn. The other a one hex stack with two routed units. AGS is the real killing area and with 5 Panzer Corps should be able to create some good pockets throughout the Summer. The Soviets have to make a stand or with Axis advancing 8 hexes a turn there is the possibility of a sudden death victory in ‘41. If the Soviet forces can be bled enough in the South then the center will have to be weakened and that opens up the prospect of taking Moscow in ‘41.

Admin.
Beginning the process of improving Corps command. Infantry Corps with the best leaders are transferred to the Panzer Groups and expanded towards 6 divisions.
All artillery moving towards the combat Infantry Corps, most of the other combat SUs are shifted back to OKH and will be attached to Panzer/Mod divisions as required.
Supply Priority set to 4 for Panzer Corps; 3 for German Infantry and 2 for the rest. Have put the Luftwaffe down to 1, not sure how that is going to work out but am not intending to use the bombers much for the early moves - will see what the Soviet strategy is.
Fighters pilots set to priority.

Image
Attachments
T01.jpg
T01.jpg (1.55 MiB) Viewed 1294 times
The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
Nix77
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:19 am
Location: Finland

RE: 41 Campaign, tyonec (A) vs Dodo98 (v). No Dodo.

Post by Nix77 »

I would avoid stuffing assault corps full with 6 divisions. The moment you split one division, thus exceeding command capacity, the corps will lose the assault benefits. 5 divisions should be OK if you keep in mind you can split only two of them.

But it's a good idea to maximize the assault HQ usage. With the upgraded command capacity, you can even leave some of the worst commanders' corps empty, while filling the best assault corps with 5 divisions. Then later on replace the bad commanders when you have spare AP.
User avatar
tyronec
Posts: 5485
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Portaferry, N. Ireland

RE: 41 Campaign, tyonec (A) vs Dodo98 (v). No Dodo.

Post by tyronec »

I would avoid stuffing assault corps full with 6 divisions. The moment you split one division, thus exceeding command capacity, the corps will lose the assault benefits. 5 divisions should be OK if you keep in mind you can split only two of them.
Would agree that it is not good to have a Corps exceed it's command capacity. If there are 6 divisions in an assault Corps and there is a need to break one down then there is no loss of CPP by transferring one that has 0 MPs left at the end of the turn. There is a lot to be gained by making good use of the best leaders and Assault HQs though it does require careful planning from turn to turn.
It particular with Motorised Corps it is good not to fill them to capacity as the mobile divisions are getting broken down so often.
The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
DeletedUser1769703214
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: 41 Campaign, tyonec (A) vs Dodo98 (v). No Dodo.

Post by DeletedUser1769703214 »

ORIGINAL: tyronec
I would avoid stuffing assault corps full with 6 divisions. The moment you split one division, thus exceeding command capacity, the corps will lose the assault benefits. 5 divisions should be OK if you keep in mind you can split only two of them.
Would agree that it is not good to have a Corps exceed it's command capacity. If there are 6 divisions in an assault Corps and there is a need to break one down then there is no loss of CPP by transferring one that has 0 MPs left at the end of the turn. There is a lot to be gained by making good use of the best leaders and Assault HQs though it does require careful planning from turn to turn.
It particular with Motorised Corps it is good not to fill them to capacity as the mobile divisions are getting broken down so often.

I agree with Tyronec here. I do the same exact thing in all my games already. The benefits are excellent.
Nix77
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:19 am
Location: Finland

RE: 41 Campaign, tyonec (A) vs Dodo98 (v). No Dodo.

Post by Nix77 »

ORIGINAL: tyronec
I would avoid stuffing assault corps full with 6 divisions. The moment you split one division, thus exceeding command capacity, the corps will lose the assault benefits. 5 divisions should be OK if you keep in mind you can split only two of them.
Would agree that it is not good to have a Corps exceed it's command capacity. If there are 6 divisions in an assault Corps and there is a need to break one down then there is no loss of CPP by transferring one that has 0 MPs left at the end of the turn. There is a lot to be gained by making good use of the best leaders and Assault HQs though it does require careful planning from turn to turn.
It particular with Motorised Corps it is good not to fill them to capacity as the mobile divisions are getting broken down so often.

Well you're actually absolutely correct :D I was kind of in the WitE1 mind set still, where one needs to spend AP when changing command. I guess you could even just get rid of any extra CP by moving regiments to different corps, to have the maximum capacity in the assault corps all the time.

User avatar
tyronec
Posts: 5485
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Portaferry, N. Ireland

T02

Post by tyronec »

T02.

Little action from the Soviets, just a few attacks to escape pockets that failed. All pockets held up.

AGN. The push up the coast continues. Am ignoring Pskov.
Take Vitebsk without a battle and get up to Smolensk which will limit their fort building. May be able to assault next turn.

AGC. Take Mogilev and nearly across the Dnepr towards Gomel. I think they will have to abandon the river defence here or face being flanked with Panzers coming down from Mogilev.

AGS. Take Vinnetsa and a small pocket on the Romanian bored. Pushing towards Odessa.

Pocket clearance from T1 is well under way.
In general it looks like the Soviets are pulling back, so am happy to make use of as much free advance as they allow. Will see if a solid front line shows up next turn.
No air combat this turn by either side, just some Recon by the Luftwaffe.

Image
Attachments
T02.jpg
T02.jpg (2.25 MiB) Viewed 1293 times
The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
User avatar
tyronec
Posts: 5485
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Portaferry, N. Ireland

T03

Post by tyronec »

Air recon.
Have 4 air groups in each AOG and just move them forwards at the end of each turn, also the fighters for cover in case the VVS join in - but no sign of them yet.

Image
Attachments
T03a.jpg
T03a.jpg (313.01 KiB) Viewed 1293 times
The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
User avatar
tyronec
Posts: 5485
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Portaferry, N. Ireland

RE: T03

Post by tyronec »

T03.

Baltics. Largely taken, barely a Soviets in sight - just one mech division which gets routed and pocketed.

PG4. Smolensk was defended by just two divisions so assault it and posh on past. The infantry are arriving so will be able to join the action next turn.

PG3. No combats, just pocket a couple of rear guard units.

PG2. Not many Soviets around so just trash a few units with our Panzers south of Kiev.

PG1. Odessa had no garrison so take it and trash a few weak units, well set up to get around Nikolaev next turn.

No air combat.
The Soviets are giving up a lot of ground, will see how that pans out over the next few turns.

Image
Attachments
T03b.jpg
T03b.jpg (2.05 MiB) Viewed 1293 times
The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
User avatar
M60A3TTS
Posts: 4854
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 1:20 am

RE: T03

Post by M60A3TTS »

I saw this movie already. Surrender or no, game over by October.
DeletedUser1769703214
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: T03

Post by DeletedUser1769703214 »

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

I saw this movie already. Surrender or no, game over by October.

I concur with you M60. Full on drive on Moscow and south. More than likely loss by auto VP on or way before turn 16. I am still a 100% firm believer the VP allocation is not correct for head-2-head.
User avatar
tyronec
Posts: 5485
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Portaferry, N. Ireland

RE: T03

Post by tyronec »

I saw this movie already. Surrender or no, game over by October.
Yes I kind of agree. Is a bit disappointing as having been away from the game for 6 months was thinking maybe things would be different, but if anything it feels easier for Axis to romp across the map at will.
Having said that is a tough match up for Dodo with my having played the game so much. Hopefully aspiring Axis players can use this as a base line to work out their own strategy.

What is others players opinion, is it possible for the Soviets to come up with an effective counter ?
The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
DeletedUser1769703214
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: T03

Post by DeletedUser1769703214 »

ORIGINAL: tyronec
I saw this movie already. Surrender or no, game over by October.
Yes I kind of agree. Is a bit disappointing as having been away from the game for 6 months was thinking maybe things would be different, but if anything it feels easier for Axis to romp across the map at will.
Having said that is a tough match up for Dodo with my having played the game so much. Hopefully aspiring Axis players can use this as a base line to work out their own strategy.

What is others players opinion, is it possible for the Soviets to come up with an effective counter ?

Nothing changed after you left Tyronec. Other than the fact that I had come on board and learning the game. I am now up to speed and can 100% say that the Axis are "over-powered" in 41 and into 42. I went personally for Leningrad to make it challenging for myself knowing I had more than enough time to take Moscow too. At this point here is what is wrong with the game.

1. The VP for head-2-head players games is "WRONG". The game is catered to the human-vs-AI and as such it shows. Leningrad should be worth 60 points. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Followed by Moscow at 35, Sevestopol at 10, yes 10!!!! I would raise Vorenezh VP and/or Rostov VP. But as it currently stands for Germany you can just rush Moscow very easily & Soviets will be hard pressed & take Sevestopol with a few minor other cities and game is over. Against equal opponents with current ruleset German will win this 85+% of the time, and I am being conservative in that number. Why is that you ask? See #2

2. The problem starts on turn 1 with how far the Germans can push. The minute the Germans cross the yellow line going East then MP's should double or have something just like in the South for the Germans in my opinion. Owning this territory allows Germany to push to & even possibly take Smolensk on the 2nd turn if luky. But without Soviet opposition the Germans basically plays some Mozart and dance their way east all.

Those right there are your two major issues. The 3rd IS the supply & the Super Depot just brings back WITE1 with a vengeance. Thus why in head-2-head games in 41 Super Depots should be kicked to the curb.



Image
Attachments
Inkedturn..oblem_LI.jpg
Inkedturn..oblem_LI.jpg (1.03 MiB) Viewed 1296 times
carlkay58
Posts: 8778
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:30 pm

RE: T03

Post by carlkay58 »

Having lost to both of you as the Soviets I can say that the one thing we are really seeing is that there are some answers for the Axis strategies at the moment but we have not yet seen some working Soviet strategies as of yet. I think there is potential there but it is going to take some time to develop some working strategies. Too much of the Soviet focus is still on WitE1 strategies that are not necessarily valid any more.

1. VP assignments are easy to tweak and probably will be once there are more HvH games played. Unfortunately all we really have are AIvAI and HvAI games to go on with any true distribution.

2. I seem to recall that there is already a penalty (or removing of the turn 1 benefits) at about that line. I used to be able to capture or ZOC Vitebsk on turn 1 very easily but things were changed so it could no longer be done.

3. Yes I think the Axis supply situation is too easy in 41. I really don't know how to fix it other than maybe a special rule or two. My AAR is coming out of winter soon and I will be trying some things in 42 for supply and see if I think it is still too easy in that timeframe. It is possible the supply system is too generous overall for the Axis. Super Depots should not exist in 41. It is just too unrealistic and makes it even easier for the Axis. I don't think there is any historical basis for Super Depots for the Axis in 41.
DeletedUser1769703214
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: T03

Post by DeletedUser1769703214 »

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

Having lost to both of you as the Soviets I can say that the one thing we are really seeing is that there are some answers for the Axis strategies at the moment but we have not yet seen some working Soviet strategies as of yet. I think there is potential there but it is going to take some time to develop some working strategies. Too much of the Soviet focus is still on WitE1 strategies that are not necessarily valid any more.

1. VP assignments are easy to tweak and probably will be once there are more HvH games played. Unfortunately all we really have are AIvAI and HvAI games to go on with any true distribution.

2. I seem to recall that there is already a penalty (or removing of the turn 1 benefits) at about that line. I used to be able to capture or ZOC Vitebsk on turn 1 very easily but things were changed so it could no longer be done.

3. Yes I think the Axis supply situation is too easy in 41. I really don't know how to fix it other than maybe a special rule or two. My AAR is coming out of winter soon and I will be trying some things in 42 for supply and see if I think it is still too easy in that timeframe. It is possible the supply system is too generous overall for the Axis. Super Depots should not exist in 41. It is just too unrealistic and makes it even easier for the Axis. I don't think there is any historical basis for Super Depots for the Axis in 41.

Tyronec & Myself are probably two of the hardest opponents on the forums that posts. I am sure there are others but may not post as often. I do not envy the torment that you went through in those games :(

On #2 I believed they moved a Division around. But a division isn't going to do jack "sh*t" since only one German has to attack it and it is gone. Then rest of Germans zoom through. Thus the Soviets losing that ground on turn 1 helps the Moscow 66 VP rush greatly.
User avatar
tyronec
Posts: 5485
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Portaferry, N. Ireland

RE: T03

Post by tyronec »

I am now up to speed and can 100% say that the Axis are "over-powered" in 41 and into 42.
You may well be right, certainly it is difficult for the Soviets in '41.
Am not convinced that how far Axis get on T1 is the critical factor. I think that as long as Axis keep the Soviets forces from growing too much over the early few moves and maintain a moderate rate of advance then when the Soviets have to make a stand Axis have the chance of winning by making big pockets around mid summer. All depending on where the power balance is between the two sides.

Game balance was not always such that Axis had an advantage, there were periods during testing when the Soviets could build a defensive line early/mid summer and Axis had a tough job breaking through. It seems that as the game is now then a stack of a couple of Panzer divisions is just trashing anything in the open and it is difficult for the Soviets to counter that or build up any defense line when Axis can just roll them over even before their infantry arrive. I would lean towards this being a greater issue than how far Axis get on T1.
The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.
Enough of Stalin, Freedom for the Ukraine !
DeletedUser1769703214
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: T03

Post by DeletedUser1769703214 »

ORIGINAL: tyronec
I am now up to speed and can 100% say that the Axis are "over-powered" in 41 and into 42.
You may well be right, certainly it is difficult for the Soviets in '41.
Am not convinced that how far Axis get on T1 is the critical factor. I think that as long as Axis keep the Soviets forces from growing too much over the early few moves and maintain a moderate rate of advance then when the Soviets have to make a stand Axis have the chance of winning by making big pockets around mid summer. All depending on where the power balance is between the two sides.

Game balance was not always such that Axis had an advantage, there were periods during testing when the Soviets could build a defensive line early/mid summer and Axis had a tough job breaking through. It seems that as the game is now then a stack of a couple of Panzer divisions is just trashing anything in the open and it is difficult for the Soviets to counter that or build up any defense line when Axis can just roll them over even before their infantry arrive. I would lean towards this being a greater issue than how far Axis get on T1.

That turn 1 push in the center gives the Germans a turn, if not 2 turns, against certain opponents. Turn 2 you are at Smolensk. That is a very extensive gain without any fighting. Even Soviets putting a whole bunch of shell divisions there for the Germans to wade through is better than nothing which is happening now. To be honest the Soviets need to be able to set TOE down to 20%. The 50% TOE is draining resources away from other formations that need it in key locations. Otherwise you are stuck disbanding these divisions.


Yes, the ruleset changed through-out BETA. But in current ruleset, in live ruleset, the Germans take that ground easily and ever that much closer to Moscow. That extra ground "steals" from the Soviet the extra time in turns for them to set up further back a real defense. Speed is the factor and taking land without a fight escalates the deterioration of the situation.
DeletedUser1769703214
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: T03

Post by DeletedUser1769703214 »

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: tyronec
I am now up to speed and can 100% say that the Axis are "over-powered" in 41 and into 42.
You may well be right, certainly it is difficult for the Soviets in '41.
Am not convinced that how far Axis get on T1 is the critical factor. I think that as long as Axis keep the Soviets forces from growing too much over the early few moves and maintain a moderate rate of advance then when the Soviets have to make a stand Axis have the chance of winning by making big pockets around mid summer. All depending on where the power balance is between the two sides.

Game balance was not always such that Axis had an advantage, there were periods during testing when the Soviets could build a defensive line early/mid summer and Axis had a tough job breaking through. It seems that as the game is now then a stack of a couple of Panzer divisions is just trashing anything in the open and it is difficult for the Soviets to counter that or build up any defense line when Axis can just roll them over even before their infantry arrive. I would lean towards this being a greater issue than how far Axis get on T1.

That turn 1 push in the center gives the Germans a turn, if not 2 turns, against certain opponents. Turn 2 you are at Smolensk. That is a very extensive gain without any fighting. Even Soviets putting a whole bunch of shell divisions there for the Germans to wade through is better than nothing which is happening now. To be honest the Soviets need to be able to set TOE down to 20%. The 50% TOE is draining resources away from other formations that need it in key locations. Otherwise you are stuck disbanding these divisions.


Yes, the ruleset changed through-out BETA. But in current ruleset, in live ruleset, the Germans take that ground easily and ever that much closer to Moscow. That extra ground "steals" from the Soviet the extra time in turns for them to set up further back a real defense. Speed is the factor and taking land without a fight escalates the deterioration of the situation.

But again, all of this steams from the VP system being totally wrong which was my first point. Since humans are always inclined to go for low hanging fruit and Moscow and the South are just that fruit for victory.
DeletedUser1769703214
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: T03

Post by DeletedUser1769703214 »

ORIGINAL: tyronec

It seems that as the game is now then a stack of a couple of Panzer divisions is just trashing anything in the open and it is difficult for the Soviets to counter that or build up any defense line when Axis can just roll them over even before their infantry arrive. I would lean towards this being a greater issue than how far Axis get on T1.

This is a very good point too. Of course you could be right on this and I am wrong on depth of penetration 1st turn. Or could be a combination of the two. Eventually we are surely to figure it out ;-)

Also noticed Soviet combat rolls are absolutely "horrid" up to around turn 10ish what I have seen in my games. Has anyone else noticed this even with proper chain of command?
User avatar
budd
Posts: 3151
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:16 pm
Location: Tacoma

RE: T03

Post by budd »

Gentleman, as always thanks to all who put the effort into doing AAR's for our enjoyment and education. I have a question, maybe it's dumb question but I'll ask anyway. Why can't there be a separate campaign just for H vs H play? Maybe one geared toward high level play, with adjusted rules or VP suited for that purpose. I know H vs H is a smaller percentage of the customer base, maybe it's harder to make a campaign then I imagine for that purpose but I've always wondered why it hasn't been done.
Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Be Yourself; Everyone else is already taken" ~Oscar Wilde

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.
DeletedUser1769703214
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: T03

Post by DeletedUser1769703214 »

ORIGINAL: budd

Gentleman, as always thanks to all who put the effort into doing AAR's for our enjoyment and education. I have a question, maybe it's dumb question but I'll ask anyway. Why can't there be a separate campaign just for H vs H play? Maybe one geared toward high level play, with adjusted rules or VP suited for that purpose. I know H vs H is a smaller percentage of the customer base, maybe it's harder to make a campaign then I imagine for that purpose but I've always wondered why it hasn't been done.

It can be done. I have an edited VP GC41 game already that I have worked on. Just the fine points ironing it out over the games I have played and presenting it here for discussion. That is all that is left really. But awesome question :)
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”