Taming the Tiger or Slaying the Bear......loki100 (Axis) vs Speedy (SU)

[xhoel]

@loki100: Thanks for attaching the battle report. Seems consistent with the one I am looking at from the battle of Prague. Infantry is doing most of the damage, losses escalating like crazy and units routing in the end. It needs to be tweaked but I agree that simply changing the tile type is not the solution.

The routines need to be dialed down so the defender is not being hammered down so much.

ORIGINAL: loki100

anyway, took it back - which should wreck the railyard.

Good job, counterattacks are a fine art!

[Stamb]

I was talking about applying heavy urban or at least city combat mechanics to an urban hexes, so it would affect on going games. Not to change hexes themself. And I mentioned that it would be a quick fix, but I think it is better than nothing. It is pretty game breaking as almost all VP are urban hexes.

P.S

Instead of a hold and massive casualties to an attacker we have completely opposite situation where attacker take light losses (at least in killed men), hex is lost, despite < 2 final combat odds, and in addition to that defenders are routed. Double lose for the defenders.

[Speedysteve]

Yup I think we’ve seen enough Urban battles to know it’s not ‘quite right’….good thing is by Loki taking it back I can wreck some more Axis now[:'(]

P.s Loki when I first re-took it the railyard and manpower were at 100 damage. Not sure how much more damage you could cause[:'(]

Anyway time to wreck some Bad Guys!

[loki100]

T126 – 14 November 1943

Well picking up from last turn and the Soviet report, two things happened. The rain did indeed fall on the front line from the Desna to Leningrad but to the south it was snowfall/light snow, apart from where the LW was based – where it remained heavy rain.

Next turn might still have some mud on the current climatic divide but watching turn end it seems to be snow everywhere.

And, Dnepropetrovsk fell, despite having 3 good divisions and across a major river. Its frustrating that in the end such a hex is the obvious weak spot in any defensive line – but reinforces my logic that the only solution is defend the approaches instead.

Really only one sensible response – remembering that the more damage to the railyard the less value it has - is to retake it?



Its going to be a long time till the next real break but hit back where I can, especially where it seems the Soviets had ideas of encirclements – or left a weak front line.



Small Soviet offensive south of the Desna, looks like they are trying to secure the dual rails, less inclined to stop their fun here for the moment. It also targetted my very useful Hungarian formations.

More generally, they seem to have built up here so I suspect they are going to try and push me out of the last belt of good defensive terrain as soon as they can.



Not bad exchange, especially of permanent losses. Given their 3:2 overall advantage, 2-1 helps a little bit.



Gave the VVS a shoeing, just to remind them who is boss – all that off the GS interactions.



So at the moment, I can do attrition – scrapped a load of construction units which helps, at worst that is about 10 lost diivisions of spare manpower.



Wish the Rumanians would stop sacking each other.

[Hardradi]

ORIGINAL: xhoel

ORIGINAL: Hardradi

Thats a lot of Artillery the Soviets threw at this battle. Disruption would have been pretty high.

There is a tendency to overestimate the effects of artillery in battle. Speedy can probably show us the battle details, but I doubt the answer is there. I think this has to do with the close quarter combat routines that are only triggered in Urban Combat and which leave units in unready state.

I see this in my game too. Full strength divisions going from 80% TOE to 15% ready TOE and general TOE of 50%. Too many elements are damaged and that makes the position untenable.

With that amount of 'guns', assuming they mostly commit, it will sometimes also cause significant disruption in a city battle, both for the defender and the attacker. In non-urban battles, from what I have seen, massed artillery is decisive just from the sheer number of disruptions it causes.

I well aware that infantry and HMG rule the streets. Might be better to take this back to the City thread started a while ago rather than clog up the AAR.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Hardradi
...

With that amount of 'guns', assuming they mostly commit, it will sometimes also cause significant disruption in a city battle, both for the defender and the attacker. In non-urban battles, from what I have seen, massed artillery is decisive just from the sheer number of disruptions it causes.

I well aware that infantry and HMG rule the streets. Might be better to take this back to the City thread started a while ago rather than clog up the AAR.

In the Soviet attacks they had a lot of guns but they did next to no damage - I had about 50 elements hit from artillery and they became a mix of disrupted and damaged. In my counterattack, about half the damage inflicted on the Soviets came from my artillery.

So clearly it can be decisive but its very variable.

Might be a product of better experience, better command chain but I don't think its commitment as such, its effectiveness when committed

[Hardradi]

ORIGINAL: loki100

So clearly it can be decisive but its very variable.

Might be a product of better experience, better command chain but I don't think its commitment as such, its effectiveness when committed

Yes, I am playing two games as Axis at the moment so I am largely drawing from those gameplay experiences, hence I am generally getting good commitment and often good results (disruption wise). Although I am pretty sure I can see similar trends in some of my opponents attacks.

When you disrupt 30%+ of an enemy force it doesnt leave them with a CV of enough strength to hold a hex.

[jubjub]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Hardradi
...

With that amount of 'guns', assuming they mostly commit, it will sometimes also cause significant disruption in a city battle, both for the defender and the attacker. In non-urban battles, from what I have seen, massed artillery is decisive just from the sheer number of disruptions it causes.

I well aware that infantry and HMG rule the streets. Might be better to take this back to the City thread started a while ago rather than clog up the AAR.

In the Soviet attacks they had a lot of guns but they did next to no damage - I had about 50 elements hit from artillery and they became a mix of disrupted and damaged. In my counterattack, about half the damage inflicted on the Soviets came from my artillery.

So clearly it can be decisive but its very variable.

Might be a product of better experience, better command chain but I don't think its commitment as such, its effectiveness when committed

This sounds like there was a difference in fortifications. Level 2/3 forts reduce artillery effects drastically.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: jubjub

...

This sounds like there was a difference in fortifications. Level 2/3 forts reduce artillery effects drastically.

aye thats the reason, had forgotten about the level 3 fortifications I had there - actually by accident in that they were created when I first captured the city and maintained as I used the city as a major refit spot throughout 1942.

clearly when I counter-attacked they were back to zero for the Soviets

[loki100]

T127 – 21 November 1943

So we seem to have a war on with the start of three major Soviet offensives ... but first some weather news. Thats for next turn and in a normal winter would imply blizzards by early December. Here it will end up as snowfall but just possibly might make a mess of the Soviet rear area (in the same way that the heavy rain hit me).



Back to the air war and back to the railyard war, as before my goal is not to disrupt current depot capacity (any damage will be offset by HQ allocation) but for when these railyards are needed for depot-depot freight.

The other shift is a return to GA-interdiction, I'm picking spots where the Soviets are advanced into poor terrain but behind them its clear, goal is to remove admin movement (principally for the supply trucks).

There's a fair bit of predictable misunderstanding of the Soviet logistics in WiTE2. Its actually very fragile in this phase and I'm hoping that by niggling away at aspects, those problems slowly worsen, if their armoured formations are around 30MP and the Rifle Corps 12MP a lot of my problems start to ease.

Moscow probably wasn't worth it, Kharkov was flattened. So distance is a real constraint but the NSS' rail yard is *20 for capacity so 13% of damage is a bite out of it – but I doubt I can sustain this.




The experimental interdiction probably hit the wrong target area, I'll keep this under review. Clearly any reward is slow and indirect.



To the map, Soviet offensive aimed at Smolensk opened but took heavy losses for a single hex in my fort belt.

Given the commanders involved, they do seem now to be serious about this sector.




Wider Smolensk sector. No counter-attacks, let them have their gains but equally I have multiple lines (even if Smolensk itself is presumably a death trap).



Bigger problems in the south – not least the first pocket (not really counting early turn cut-offs) at Poltava. Now the nice thing about being pocketed is there are often juicy, over-extended, targets now available, so time to do to the Soviets what they did to me in 1941.

Usual pattern, isolate and rout.





Now that used most of 1 PzrA but 4 PzrA had the week off.

In terms of terrain that was a loss, but no point giving the Soviets the chance to take some revenge and the rail net here (for them) is very odd with some important gaps.



Took a different approach in the Dnepr bend, one localised attack to protect a retreat route but generally opted to hold the current line. I want to make the ZoC costs for the Dnepr pay – and it maybe (hopefully) the counter-attack at Poltava has removed their more mobile assets for a few turns.



So some things start to change. The ratio of units in refit/ready has started to increase, at the moment its still mostly a single turn state (apart from the Pzrs) but its a steady stream of units out of the line. And I mostly have to accept terrain losses and indeed start giving it up voluntarily to avoid needless losses.

Overall not bad, almost 80,000 permanent losses must be enough to stop the Soviets actually building up their manpower. And I very kindly cleared out a lot of their soon to be obsolete tanks so they have slots for the new stuff.

Also the artillery losses are enough to cause them problems, at a guess they are getting around 900 guns and larger mortars per turn (and no more than 40 heavier guns) so that is more than a turn's production.



Air war was a bit worse than I'd like but generally my formations are more robust (high enough morale that the losses don't render them in need of a break) and I have plenty of planes in reserve. Also, come early 1944, I really start to lose a lot to the west so its delivering a useful benefit.



The big numbers have changed quite a lot since T125. So that is a net 300k off the Soviet on-map numbers (and they have taken 150k out of reserve), a net 1,000 tanks have gone missing and the VVS is down almost 2,000 on map.

Germans are down (net) 70,000 men (some withdrawals), 400 tanks and 300 planes.

So that is just off 2 turns of active operations – its going to be a long winter.

16 Pzr is due to arrive next turn (axis players of WiTW curse this withdrawal as it usually comes just as the Allies push on Rome).



Have started to track Soviet truck losses, its the only proxy measure I readily have available to guess at their wider logistics network and unit mobility.

The second line is just their truck losses in their logistics phase – I guess that is the best single measure of how efficient their supply network is functioning (since clearly its correlated to actual truck usage in that phase with that affected by the sum of all the MP costs involved).

Their production is made up of around 130 truck factories (I'm going by an old vs AI save here) so that is 130*10*.55, approx 700 and 4,500 from LL. So knocking out1,300 (even assuming some is offset by capturing mine) is 25% of weekly production and they have the problem of getting new trucks to where they are needed. Also if 1,300 are destroyed, there will be a second group of damaged – that I have no means to unpick.

The 1944 LL value is 6,000, their domestic production may go up a little depending on recaptures and repairs but if I recall stays at around 700 per turn. 1945 sees a drop in LL receipts but by then it should all be going into the logistics system.




No gains or losses for off map VP so the only changes are the predictable core city values. Basically the Soviets are up +21 for the Dnepr bend and will get another +36 next turn (when they finally reach Sevastopol). Smolensk will fall in the next few turns.

From my perspective, all that is factored in, I'm not going to hold the current line till the end of December 1944 – I doubt I'll hold in the south till January 1944 without having to start a significant retreat.

[Stamb]

That -10 and -12 planes losses for interdiction are huge, considering no enemy airplanes. Almost 50% in first case and 50% in a second one. Did you fly in a blizzard or what happened there?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

That -10 and -12 planes losses for interdiction are huge, considering no enemy airplanes. Almost 50% in first case and 50% in a second one. Did you fly in a blizzard or what happened there?

why?

no no blizzard, its a mild winter

and yes, a number of Soviet HQs were in the target area, presumably with AA SU attached. so yes I took losses.

its not a 'I win' trick, its more another way to make the logistics system hit the Soviets, maybe works maybe doesn't.

I realise there is a lot of nonsense going around about Soviet logistics, well when they return to the offensive they have all the problems the axis had in 1941 and, just for the fun of it, an army of 6.5m+ compared to one of around 3.4m to supply

[Stamb]

50% flak losses are pretty big. I assume it is flak losses as you did not fly in blizzard and there was no enemy air planes. Also I think that you was not using tactical bombers for the interdiction. So low AA was not a threat for your level bombers. That is why I think that it is huge losses. But maybe there are a lot of high altitude AA that shredded your planes in that two cases.

No to start a discussion about Soviet supply here, just to mention that the thing is that people believe (and I also do so) that in `41 and `42 Soviets logistics is overpowered, which allows them to set supply priority 4 at the start of the game and forget about it for the next two/three years. Which leads to a situations that they can store > 100% of supplies and ammo. Which is from alternative fantasy universe, and not from a history of ww2.

I do not say that their supply system is overpowered later on. Maybe it is working fine when they get far away from a NSS. But we clearly see that in `41 and `42 it is a non factor at all. And it has to be tuned.

[Stamb]

Can Comrade Steve share his logistic report with freight received/needed when Soviets are on offensive action? Unless it is classified

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

50% flak losses are pretty big. I assume it is flak losses as you did not fly in blizzard and there was no enemy air planes. Also I think that you was not using tactical bombers for the interdiction. So low AA was not a threat for your level bombers. That is why I think that it is huge losses. But maybe there are a lot of high altitude AA that shredded your planes in that two cases.

...

well, don't make assumptions, I created 2 AOGs (one in L1 one in L4) particularly set up if I wanted to run these interdiction missions, they are a mix of tactical bombers and FBs, under 9k. If I don't do the interdiction they return to their default GS function

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Can Comrade Steve share his logistic report with freight received/needed when Soviets are on offensive action? Unless it is classified

Afraid I can't right now. It's at such a sensitive phase of the game I don't want Herr Loki seeing any challenges or strengths that I currently have. When it doesn't matter anymore, to the outcome of the game, I'll report on it.

It's also frustrating for me since I want to post about plans and what's happening on the turns but we're only 1 turn ahead of each of Loki's (excellent) reports so I can't risk posting anything showing the map/units etc. I can provide details of any losses/pools though but I know that's hardly exciting[;)]

I guess in the future I can provide my thoughts of previous operations 1-2 months after they've happened.

[Stamb]

I understand. Can you also take some notes about effect of that railyards bombing, so you can share it later on?

Thanks.

[Speedysteve]

Will do [:)]

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: loki100

I realise there is a lot of nonsense going around about Soviet logistics, well when they return to the offensive they have all the problems the axis had in 1941 and, just for the fun of it, an army of 6.5m+ compared to one of around 3.4m to supply

The discussion about Soviet logistics being very simple is regarding 1941 up to maybe 1943, not the later war period when Soviets are advancing into Poland and Germany.

Are you saying that you think Soviets do actually have significant logistical challenges in 1941-43 that can't be solved by simply setting supply priority 4? So far I have not really seen them in my games using the 1941 scenario and StB.

If you only mean logistical problems that come into play when Soviets advance further, that is one thing, but it is another matter to say Soviets have logistical issues when the front line is further back. I haven't seen any real evidence of that, so if you have any it would be interesting to see.


Also I am curious - what supply priorities are you using for the German troops?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

ORIGINAL: loki100

I realise there is a lot of nonsense going around about Soviet logistics, well when they return to the offensive they have all the problems the axis had in 1941 and, just for the fun of it, an army of 6.5m+ compared to one of around 3.4m to supply

The discussion about Soviet logistics being very simple is regarding 1941 up to maybe 1943, not the later war period when Soviets are advancing into Poland and Germany.

Are you saying that you think Soviets do actually have significant logistical challenges in 1941-43 that can't be solved by simply setting supply priority 4? So far I have not really seen them in my games using the 1941 scenario and StB.

If you only mean logistical problems that come into play when Soviets advance further, that is one thing, but it is another matter to say Soviets have logistical issues when the front line is further back. I haven't seen any real evidence of that, so if you have any it would be interesting to see.


Also I am curious - what supply priorities are you using for the German troops?

generally, as maybe clear, I've stopped reading the main forum, just fed up with the general tone. Criticism/suggestions fine but the unending game broken posts, that there are at least 2 sock puppet accounts for people with bans stirring up issues, that a whole load of the claims are often based on misunderstanding the game systems, just not worth it.

So I'm sticking to the AARs where I can engage with those that interest me and the beta forum.

Which is a long, and grumpy way [;)], of saying not aware of the latest discussion. As with so much else, it no doubt utterly focuses on T1-15 with little account of how that sets up feedback loops for a game designed to be played into late 1942, early 1945 or T210+.

So does #4 solve the early problems, maybe, does it dump the Soviets into a truck shortage that will really hurt in 1942, possibly, are Soviet logistics easy when they return to the strategic offensive - nope.

All my Pzr armies are on #4, the rest #3 - no need for subtlety now, I had every rail link repaired by the end of the summer of 1942, so the only real delivery constraint is how much the NSS can pump out - also its now me falling back on pre-existing depots that I can fill up in anticipation and collapse as I want.

I'll try and give one way that I think this is a game of choices and consequences that the t15 focus misses. At one level my Summer-Autumn 1942 was a disaster, I never made progress, I was constantly bogged down in ZoC and reserve reactions. Frankly it was boring to play (this phase is far more fun). But it generated opportunities that I am now cashing in. I clearly never got over-extended, Steven fought me where I had first rate supply, he actually lost an awful lot of men, despite no big gains I was taking out the equivalent of 3-5 divisions a turn. So the feedback loop is we are now at a 3-2 manpower ratio and if I'm prepared to gamble, I can actually overmatch him on a critical sector, hence the Poltava battles in the last post.

I've been meaning to do something like this for a while, trying to some produce some metrics by phase. So I've split this up into 6 periods, first 2 are obvious, then the summer 42 offensive, the relative stalemate that followed and the slowly shifting fighting that has followed. Losses are a bit hard to state given the dynamic of damaged men returning but its still informative.

Mainly due to the Stalingrad bonus (& of course I didn't have the related losses), my army is now the biggest its ever been (I've just sent T128 back) but I've not just stopped the Red Army growing, its shrunk down (& has relatively limited unallocated manpower reserves) - note the loss/turn ratio in the 'stalemate' period.



so, I'm not convinced that for the game as a whole there is any discernable bias, as opposed to patches that have had unintended effects. There is a huge amount of player agency and the tools to turn a situation around - and note the ratios over the last 8 turns as Steven has adjusted his tactics. But if the discussion is purely about German players winning early (or giving up - as is the depressing norm), well that overall balance gets lost in the noise.

edit: just to clarify, I've excluded my allies from the numbers but clearly they are in the losses, so a fair amount of my recent escalation in losses have been the Rumanians as I increasingly use them to absorb MP and CPP

Roger