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

[carlkay58]

Beethoven1 -

My experience with the Soviets is limited BUT I do have concerns with setting Supply Priority 4 for everything does a few things that later on down the road could really cost the Soviets. The first is trucks and the wear and tear on the truck pool when the Lend Lease pools are small and the Soviets REALY need those trucks later in the war. The second is that infantry armies just don't really need that much supply. The Soviet artillery is not really working that well for them in 41 and not expending the amount of ammo that it could at full capacity. Very little fuel use and the common heavy and small arms that are available to the late 41 Rifle divisions just don't eat up that much ammo. Setting supply priority to 4 is overkill that will just drive a lot of truck breakdowns without any real benefits. The Soviets won't notice this until they try to start building those Mech and Tank Corps. Oh and the other motorized heavy units such as the rocket launchers, etc. Early 41 sees the Soviets with a truck surplus as the tank and mech divisions are essentially disbanded/downsized or set to the Reserves and their trucks stripped out. But this surplus will be eaten up quickly once the bad weather hits.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

My experience with the Soviets is limited BUT I do have concerns with setting Supply Priority 4 for everything does a few things that later on down the road could really cost the Soviets. The first is trucks and the wear and tear on the truck pool when the Lend Lease pools are small and the Soviets REALY need those trucks later in the war...

Setting supply priority to 4 is overkill that will just drive a lot of truck breakdowns without any real benefits. The Soviets won't notice this until they try to start building those Mech and Tank Corps. Oh and the other motorized heavy units such as the rocket launchers, etc.

I am not sure this is really true, based at least on the StB scenario.

Here are truck losses from 20 turns in the middle of winter of an StB game, where the entire Red Army was on supply priority 4 for the entire time, and the main Soviet offensive was also in relatively bad supply areas also with rough terrain (the north near Leningrad and the Toropets salient near Velikie Luki):



1021 trucks lost... You can easily lose more trucks than that from just a single tank corps (or division in 1941) being encircled and destroyed, something which can happen pretty commonly, and which the Soviets can certainly withstand. This is not to mention the fact that even if you are using supply priority 2 or 3, you will still lose some trucks, maybe not quite as many as 1021, but nevertheless some. So the true cost of supply priority 4 was actually less than 1021, since it should be compared to the number of trucks that would have been lost if hypothetically supply priority 2/3 had been used instead.

Either that number of 1021 trucks lost displayed in the logistics report is wrong or misleading somehow as to the true truck cost, or else the truck cost of supply priority 4 is really pretty negligible even later in the game and in winter.

It looks to me like, at most, the truck loss from using supply priority 4 for the bulk of the game might amount to meaning the Soviets can have maybe 1-3 fewer tank corps. That is not really a big deal, because you can just use the tank brigades as attachments to Guards Rifle Corps instead, and then you just have some very powerful Rifle Corps as an alternative.

Tank corps don't really seem that great, because they can't hold ground very well and Soviets have a hard time holding encirclements (as speedysteve has found). If you try to exploit too much with them, they will just get routed, which means Soviets take... a lot of truck losses. I understand that they become more resilient in 1944/45, but still it seems less than clear that having a couple less tank corps potentially is something that actually hurts the Soviets.


A final point to consider is, even if all of the above is wrong, does it matter if you have more of a truck problem as Soviets in 1943-45 if you have already won the game in 1941-42?

[Stamb]

Not to mention that priority > 2 allows to store more supply/ammo/fuel than 100% and units get more CV as a result.
More info in a main forum, where I gave a link that describes that there were problems with ammo and armaments like machine guns and etc.
Right now Soviets in 41 do not have any deficit of armaments and ammo, they have actually surplus of ammo in a units because of > 2 supply priority. It is reversed history.

Sorry for offtop Herr Loki and Comrade Steve .

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: loki100

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.

This is interesting. In Bread's game where he was having trouble holding on as Axis in 1943, he was using supply priority 2 mostly with some 3. I wonder if that difference might have something to do with it.

Also, what are the Soviet supply priorities? If Soviets are not using supply priority 4, that means they will have lower CVs. Especially if Germany is using 3 & 4, that may be part of what is making it difficult for speedysteve to attack.

This is undoubtedly not the entire explanation even if it is true, but nevertheless may be more significant than one might think. I would guess that another significant factor may be that the front is pretty straight is also helping Germany, relative to StB, where the front line is very circuitous with a lot of salients. The fact that the front is straighter and shorter is presumably what allows Loki to keep Luftwaffe formations off the front and also to stack multiple units on key hexes, while also having Panzers in reserve rather than on the front line.

In StB I have found that Soviets can attack and win battles pretty easily (however it is a challenge to not lose too many men, because the Soviet manpower modifier is a lot lower in 1943, which is something that a lot of players might not appreciate fully). However, that is with the ability to pick on weak points when the front line is long, which is not the case in this game.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

I also wonder what this looks like in the logistics report under the freight section for Soviets. How many trucks have been lost in the whole war so far from moving freight, and how does that compare to overall truck losses from the losses screen?

[carlkay58]

Beethoven1 -

That area of the Event Log is misleading you. I think it is the number of Trucks lost in Freight for that turn - not since the start of the game. It is also important to see how many vehicles you have in your Vehicle Repair Pool. Many times trucks go into the Repair Pool and then you lose some of them later as repair checks have them scrapped rather than repaired. It matters on how it affects the total number of Trucks available in the pool, how many are in units, and how many have been sent to the Repair Pool. This information is in the Production screen on the right hand side.

[carlkay58]

After some checking on previous game data it does appear that the Trucks Lost in Freight DOES go back to the start of the game. But in the reporting I was looking at that number would increase by 50 and yet the Vehicles Repair Pool would increase by over 4K for the same turn.

[Stamb]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58
...
I think it is the number of Trucks lost in Freight for that turn - not since the start of the game.
...

Agree, it is per turn. I don't think it is possible to know how many trucks were lost due to a freight delivery only from the start of the game.

ORIGINAL: carlkay58
After some checking on previous game data it does appear that the Trucks Lost in Freight DOES go back to the start of the game. But in the reporting I was looking at that number would increase by 50 and yet the Vehicles Repair Pool would increase by over 4K for the same turn.

Edit. My bad. I confused it with a units trucks used. Looks like indeed it is a history of truck losses.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

After some checking on previous game data it does appear that the Trucks Lost in Freight DOES go back to the start of the game. But in the reporting I was looking at that number would increase by 50 and yet the Vehicles Repair Pool would increase by over 4K for the same turn.

Yeah, I wondered about that too, and since this game is PBEM I went back and checked previous saves, and found that "Trucks Lost in Freight" increases each turn, and never seems to decrease. So it seems cumulative:

Turn 1 - 0
Turn 3 - 81
Turn 6 - 309
Turn 9 - 450
Turn 12 - 531
Turn 15 - 577
Turn 18 - 772
Turn 21 - 1021

It seems like either the trucks actually lost as a result of delivering freight are quite negligible (at least for Soviets), or else that something is missing/bugged about the display, or this is not showing what we presumed it shows.

As for the vehicle repair pool, I would think it makes sense that could increase by more than the trucks lost in freight, because some vehicles will need to be repaired even if they were not used in delivering supplies but were used for other things, and in addition a lot of the trucks that go to the repair pool are repaired and don't end up being lost.

[loki100]

there are 2 relevant numbers, truck losses in the freight line I believe are those connected to depot/depot deliveries, there is a much higher number which is truck losses in the logistics phase.

So T127 my logistics report was



T128~:



So that is 21 trucks - as you'd expect low as that part of my logistics model is working fine and is really functioning just off the rails

but my truck losses in the 127/8 logistics phase was much higher



Now that captures the minimal truck involvement in depot-depot and the much wider depot-unit usage, to the extent that the first number is irrelevant.

the ratio may well be closer for a Soviet player in 1941 as you probably are substituting a lot more but with your #4s you have a lot of trucks driving around.

So yes, the Tank/Mech corps are vulnerable in 42/43 (in 43 its less a TOE issue and more that is always the bad year for the Soviet medium tanks), but they are a lot more vulnerable if you destroyed the truck stock in 1941.

The Rifle Corps are a key asset to the Red Army but they are not going to reach Berlin that way. Look at my vs AI Axis game were by late 1943 I'd pretty much destroyed the Soviet mobile forces, even at 120 and tactical nukes, it all defaulted to losing a hex (2 at most) a turn = easy win vs the 1944 HWM test.

[Stamb]

does that vehicle counter includes losses from divisions retreat/surrender? If it does, then is it possible to check how many trucks were lost, not damaged, due to units grabbing supplies from a > 3 hexes range from a depot with enough freight?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

does that vehicle counter includes losses from divisions retreat/surrender? If it does, then is it possible to check how many trucks were lost, not damaged, due to units grabbing supplies from a > 3 hexes range from a depot with enough freight?

No, it is exactly as I said - my losses in the logistics phase, so nothing to do with combat, so its depot-unit transfers, some depot-depot stuff, depot-airfield

[Stamb]

aha, got it, forgot that there are different filters, and logistics phase is among them
thanks!

[loki100]

T128

Start with a bit of housekeeping. I picked up a VP for the Western TB so since I lost the initiative (July 43) I have gained a net +4 (7-3), and only given up 1 time bonus VP (this is less impressive than it sounds as of course I lost around 30 bonus pts on the initiative change due to stuff I never captured). Even so the +4 goes someway to protecting me if I have to give up something particularly early.

Weather next turn looks unexpected, if that happens it'll be good in that it pushes the major rivers up to ice 4/5 which starts to impose significant extra MP cost.

Weather this turn is snow/snowfall all over the map.



While I'm doing some pre-move housekeeping, Soviet truck losses in their logistics phase have basically doubled since last turn. Whether that is just lengthening traces or a combination of that and my poking at possible weak spots, its good to see.



Air planning, had to set 5 airgroups to rest due to high fatigue and another 4 due to low morale (still high experience so keep them on map and they'll recover). Sent 3 LB formations to the reserve due to low experience pilots being allocated as they replaced their losses.

Fortunately compensated by being able to return some of those sent off a few turns back. The VVS is configured for this sort of churn but its more a hit on operational tempo for the LW.

Anyway, seems the VVS is adapting, both railyard raids were intercepted (not good), hit Stalino to some effect, even better at Moscow (maybe being chased by fighters makes my bombers pay attention).




The L4 AOG set up for GA had to rest so abandoned hitting the Sumy-Desna sector and just used L1 on a raid behind Roslavl.

They were busy – the short range helped here.



But not that effective, though, again, that is admin movement denied to the Soviet supply efforts, snow on ground, light woods and the rivers at ice 2.

Still, given the leap in Soviet logistics costs, I'll stick to this, unlike the railyard bombing its something I can dip in and out of as my perception of the value changes.

Now, that told me the VVS was potentially active, so time to see where I can launch attacks to encourage it to fight on my terms.



Which actually didn't really pay off, did some damage but not really at a decent loss ratio. So probably a few unnecessary attacks which is not something I can easily afford.

For simplicity, call this the Smolensk sector. One attack to stop an attempt at infiltration, Soviet pressure but no serious threat – yet, gave up some ground to simplify my defensive lines.



Fighting along the Desna, not much I want to do, given I need to save 3 Pzr A for more serious tests. Have to be weak somewhere and this leads to a bit of a dead end, the southern part clears a dual rail but the central part is a supply wasteland.



Aftershocks of the Poltava fighting, gambling on keeping Dnepropetrovsk fully covered by ZoC so as to maximise the mobile MP cost for any supply. There is a risk, but the sector has 3 fresh Pzr Corps in case of emergencies.

Not shown, but the Soviets have some isolated bridgeheads over the lower Dnepr – while I'm not going to make it easy for them, content to lose some terrain here – as above there is a supply cost to be paid.

My gamble here is also informed by that weather forecast.



Losses back up to 2-1 and almost 70,000 permanent Soviet losses.

Pushed Soviet truck losses up to 753 for the turn, so nothing like the results of my attack at Poltava.



Air war less than impressive, in part due to my LB raids but its time for a rethink of my deployment.



Manpower situation gives me some hope, Soviets are flatlining so little risk of them being able to do much but replace their in-turn losses.



Keeping an eye on the overall numbers, I presume the jump in their reserve is stuff that was in transit last turn – their global numbers are much the same, on map the same but +300k in the reserve.

As you can see, my reserve is a bit of a wasteland with the occasional man looking for a training officer.



Running the turn end, the weather actually happened as forecasted, so that is going to be interesting

[loki100]

T129 – 5 December 1943

Blizzard hit but reverts to snowfall across the map next turn, possibly a blizzard around Leningrad.

Ice levels mostly in the 4-5 range.

Soviet logistics phase, their lost trucks down to 566



Paid the price for last turn's raid on Moscow, the various formations picked up new pilots and have low experience, so need to go to the reserve to train.

No Soviet attacks north of the Desna, I stomped on an attempt to infiltrate behind my defensive screen.



Main Soviet pressure on two points. South of the Desna, they are being cautious but this mostly fell on the Hungarians. I want let my Pzrs rest and re-organise for the next phase, so pull back to minimise their effect next turn. Ground conditions here are heavy snow which helps.



More pressure around the Dnepr bend. The elements of 17A N of Dnepropetrovsk were actually cut off and isolated but they then pulled back. Still have ZoC on the access to the city but clearly time to pull back. Its a long way to the next crisis point but also to the next defensive line.



Counter-attack hit some units that were trying to advance without fighting.The collapse of their cv indicates some supply problems.



Sevastopol was retaken.

Losses, I'm starting to focus on the ratio of permanent losses as the disabled line is mixed up with troops returning.

Most of mine were Rumanians and Hungarians.



VP chart with the +36 for Sevastopol. Assuming no massive change in the game dynamics, the next trade point is for Odessa (Smolensk and Kyiv are timed out), if I hold to mid-March I trade it an even value, anything beyond that is a net gain. In other words can ignore the VP score for the next 15-20 turns unless something dramatic happens.

But practically, the VP system has no real impact for the rest of the winter, just that on-map progres clearly heavily influences the summer/autumn 1944 gains and losses.

[Speedysteve]

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

VERY interesting analysis Loki. Thanks for this. For me this backs up what we've discussed a few times before......

@Beethoven - I feel more than ever this backs up what has been mentioned before - Loki's 1942 campaign was boring (for both of us) but, with hindsight, very successful. The reports from that time period exist in this AAR. The lack of an Axis advance in 1942 actually helped them (IMO). All of their operations were local with well supplied and high CPP formations. As such losses for the Axis were low. As Loki's post proves the Soviets sustained a colossal amount of men lost in the summer of 1942 through the local attacks, encirclements and annihilations.

With the Axis entering 1943 with a strong, fortified and perfectly fed (logistically) position that was un-stretched I see it as completely logical why 1943 played out as it did. The Soviets don't materially improve with NM or equipment in 1943 (they actually fall back equipment wise). I see the fall out of 1942 as a direct consequence for how the game has played out to now. If I do play Ais and enter 1942, with no chance of auto victory, I will do exactly the same as Loki has!

Just my 2p.

[Speedysteve]

Thanks to Loki for the regular posts and updates. They are fantastic (as always). As mentioned before with the updates being 1 week behind where we are I really can't comment or show much since it would give too much important info away. If there's any specific questions that readers have let me know and (if I can) I'll answer

[loki100]

T130 – 12 December 1943

Everywhere that matters is snow/snowfall, some blizzard conditions around Leningrad. River ice levels a mix of 5 (most of the front) and 6 in the lower Dnepr (following the line of last turn's blizzards).

Soviet attacks along the southern section but nothing near Smolensk or to the north.

Tried some more railyard attacks, but it seems the VVS is a bit more alert these days. Even if I regard the heavy bombers as of little direct importance its not worth losing this number of pilots.



Soviet truck losses in their logistics phase just over 500 – would like to see this much higher.



Given how long to the next imposed break, I can't risk active attacks every turn, but equally defending passively doesn't help, not least it also allows the Soviets to build up. However, I also want them to bear the problems of cross-country logistics so pulled out of this small salient at Bryansk and back along the Desna.

Was also a bit worried at their build up on the NE side.



Again, a retreat, I don't want to fight seriously here till I reach the outskirts of Kyiv and that means preserving strength for now.



Not much fighting here but am trying to control my retreat and avoid any lost units, its then a long retreat to the next decent defensive line.



Losses down from recent turns, reflects the tempo of operations.



Air loss ratio back where I'd like it to be – despite the disastrous railyard attack.



But am regaining a decent reserve manpower pool – which I think I'll need. Soviets still more or less flatlining.



But clearly are exceeding their losses as there are also worrying signs of a build up in their reserve formations though, that looks like say 12-15 Corps.

Could indicate a shift to clearing Smolensk?

Anyway, another reason to husband my resources for a while.



Weather next turn is snow/snowfall across the map.

[loki100]

T131 – 19 December 1943

Only 84 turns to go.

No sign of the Soviet reserve returning to the map



Truck Watch:



Not really having the effect I've been looking for.

A lot more attacks that turn, my refit list is steadily expanding. So decided on a few taps to remind them to be more cautious. Also the Hungarians are feeling a bit put upon. So time to look after my allies.

Only one small attack near Smolensk so decided to leave them alone there.

But they seemed to be weak along the Desna – and relatively exposed, so gave 3 PzrA a bit of practice.

Which produced a satisfying cluster of routs, some direct but most off the usual cut-off and rout tactic.



Needed a bit more thinking here, basic logic is no point attacking unless its a serious effort. In the end found a weak spot on their approach to Kiev, even better no second echelon forces. So committed 1 PzrA to the usual, routs due to temporary encirclement – those motorised brigades are very useful in this role.

The temptation was to commit 4 Pzr A around Kremenchug but decided more important to have some fresh reserves.



Less choice here as elements of 17 A were cut off again, so really had to commit the local reserves.

Again no point to half measures, so cleared a ZoC free exit route and sent a fair bit back to local refit. 8A takes over most of the immediate defense, goal here now for the next period is a controlled retreat, I have a planned defensive line and no point reaching it with the infantry formations fought out.



The two battles were not exactly one sided but that is a couple of Mech Corps in need of a refit.




Overall losses better to read. Again given the disabled line is distorted by returning men, the permanent loss line is more informative and that is over 2-1 and quite a lot of Soviet armour off to the scrap heap. Also that is about 1/3 of a turn's truck production destroyed.



Air war less favourable, some big wins but some fairly even exchanges.



Big numbers in my favour, that is the Soviets down another net 180k on map but since their total is much the same have to assume they are just in transit to refit. They've added 400 tanks to the reserve units over the last turn which suggests – to me at least – a shift of focus at some stage.

My reserve is back to its usual wasteland as I've pulled the fresh units directly to the map.

One reason (last post) why I am building up a German manpower reserve is the 1944 infantry TOE sheds quite a few elements. So the adjustment is slow but over time manpower is moving back to the pool from the front line formations. Not that important, at least its there for when really needed (ie to refit lost divisions).



Weather next turn, probable blizzard at Leningrad, snowfall/snow everywhere else. Ice levels at 6 across all of the map. So broadly winter weather is following the expected pattern.

Quick logistics check. Even with this fairly robustly set up, sustained combat can impose some extra demands (not least due to replacements). So 17A, 8A and 4 PzrA have borne the bulk of the recent action and it shows. Should ease now I've pulled back a bit.



Rather esoteric view on my losses in the TB.

[Speedysteve]

So a little addendum to Loki's last report following my turn after this,,,,I'd been planning a small operation in the South through Kherson (hate saying this with what's going on IRL....genuinely) over the past few weeks.....to help answer some previous questions re: trucks and supply - it really isn't a problem for me right now. Now I have no idea if this is due to the fact I'm still in Russia and it will worsen when I get into the Reich but for now it's simples

Untitled.jpg (359.13 KiB) Viewed 1522 times

I personally think something isn't quite right with the Supply Priority/logistics business. I've been experimenting with the strategy that some have mentioned of putting all of SU on Supply Priority 4 for the past few months.....I'm swimming in it now even on a single rail line....now I will want to wait until I reach the Reich to fully agree with this but my initial view is it's too extreme even in late 1943 for the SU. Here's a formation that assaulted Kherson from the Axis Allies (Rumania) and even after it it's still got plenty of Vodka!

Untitled1.jpg (886.61 KiB) Viewed 1522 times

Anyhow just to say the truck thing and supply is not a problem for me right now....Loki's Railyard raids have had a negligible effect. Just my 2p from December 1943....Can't post or show more right now until I take Odesa