Speedysteve,
What supply priority you was using during campaign? 4 from a start?
P. S
Ah missed that line that you put units at 4 some time ago. So what you was using before?
Taming the Tiger or Slaying the Bear......loki100 (Axis) vs Speedy (SU)
Moderator: Joel Billings
Re: Taming the Tiger or Slaying the Bear......loki100 (Axis) vs Speedy (SU)
Слава Україні!
Glory to Ukraine!
Glory to Ukraine!
-
Speedysteve
- Posts: 15974
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Reading, England
Re: Taming the Tiger or Slaying the Bear......loki100 (Axis) vs Speedy (SU)
Before this I was using a mixture of 1,2 and 3....3 near Moscow....2 on main other Fronts and 1 in outliers.....rarely achieved above a 75% supply intake (vs need) with this system.
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
T132 - An end ... to 1943
T132 – 26 December 1943
Start with some housekeeping, weather is clear/snow pretty much everywhere with the same next turn.
And their truck losses in the logistics phase are up 140 on last turn, since I've not done much to cause this presume its indicative of some stretched supply lines and the weather.
Ran a lot more recon than I have for a while, want to have better idea of any Soviet reserves, as well as about their first attempt at a serious breakthrough. Also reverted to some GA-unit attacks where I'd like to weaken them before considering my options in the ground phase, and a naval patrol just to give them a few more problems.
Anyway, not a good turn. Some small scale Soviet attacks around Smolensk, but nothing sustained.
In contrast a lot of attacks along the Desna, in the end willing to cede ground here, the terrain worsens as I fall back but would like to hold the Dnepr line for some time yet.
Apart from where they hit LW formations, Soviets took heavy losses on this sector – so where my defensive line holds, I still inflict significant damage on them.
Biggest problem is in the south, just had to give up a lot for a relatively small break-through, if I had had Pzrs more close I could have squeezed that a lot and probably given up less, but. Was surprised the Soviets had the MP for such a move on that sector, hope is they have no momentum for next turn, 4 PzrA is now well placed to hit them fairly hard. Have to see what they can manage to do.
For now prime task for 4 PzrA is to screen Odessa, I can pull 1 PzrA south as the front reaches Gomel and the Pripyet - of course for practical operational options this splits off 3 Pzr A but I can't leave the centre with no armoured reserve.
In one sense happy to break contact as it releases the weaker elements of 8 and 17A to refit but I lost a lot of Rumanian elements in the fighting around Kherson.
Carry on preparing Rumania for the next stage, not least set up just in case of a naval invasion from the Crimea.
Again total losses are a little bit misleading and the permanent losses not too bad. As indicated, the bulk of mine came off the Rumanian formations. Probably time to scrap some formations to push the assets into the rest.
No real change to the big numbers.
And I'm not going to lose at the 1 Jan 44 check stage.
Still don't think i can win at the 1 Jan 45 check either, but for the moment happy to still be defending Smolensk and Kiev.
Start with some housekeeping, weather is clear/snow pretty much everywhere with the same next turn.
And their truck losses in the logistics phase are up 140 on last turn, since I've not done much to cause this presume its indicative of some stretched supply lines and the weather.
Ran a lot more recon than I have for a while, want to have better idea of any Soviet reserves, as well as about their first attempt at a serious breakthrough. Also reverted to some GA-unit attacks where I'd like to weaken them before considering my options in the ground phase, and a naval patrol just to give them a few more problems.
Anyway, not a good turn. Some small scale Soviet attacks around Smolensk, but nothing sustained.
In contrast a lot of attacks along the Desna, in the end willing to cede ground here, the terrain worsens as I fall back but would like to hold the Dnepr line for some time yet.
Apart from where they hit LW formations, Soviets took heavy losses on this sector – so where my defensive line holds, I still inflict significant damage on them.
Biggest problem is in the south, just had to give up a lot for a relatively small break-through, if I had had Pzrs more close I could have squeezed that a lot and probably given up less, but. Was surprised the Soviets had the MP for such a move on that sector, hope is they have no momentum for next turn, 4 PzrA is now well placed to hit them fairly hard. Have to see what they can manage to do.
For now prime task for 4 PzrA is to screen Odessa, I can pull 1 PzrA south as the front reaches Gomel and the Pripyet - of course for practical operational options this splits off 3 Pzr A but I can't leave the centre with no armoured reserve.
In one sense happy to break contact as it releases the weaker elements of 8 and 17A to refit but I lost a lot of Rumanian elements in the fighting around Kherson.
Carry on preparing Rumania for the next stage, not least set up just in case of a naval invasion from the Crimea.
Again total losses are a little bit misleading and the permanent losses not too bad. As indicated, the bulk of mine came off the Rumanian formations. Probably time to scrap some formations to push the assets into the rest.
No real change to the big numbers.
And I'm not going to lose at the 1 Jan 44 check stage.
Still don't think i can win at the 1 Jan 45 check either, but for the moment happy to still be defending Smolensk and Kiev.
1944 - a sort of preview
Ok so good spot for a pause and overview.
Not surprisingly, I'm losing agency, its harder to find a spot to hit back and the rewards become more marginal. I still don't think a purely defensive approach works.
Here is the overall layout – at some stage soon the Pripyet will effectively divide the centre from the south (for us both). At first its easy for the Soviets to swap around but as they push west they become more locked into their chosen allocation.
The terrain there is more broken than it was in WiTE1 but its still easy to defend and with poor logistics options. So not ideal for a creative 'Ardennes' style solution but the potential exists.
Over recent turns there has been no real change to the on map numbers but the Soviet reserve seems to be growing steadily. Suspect the cities they have recently retaken will be helping, as with the substantial rate of wounded returns.
At a guess (ie looking at an old save) they will be producing about 3,200*9, so say 30,000 new manpower per turn (its just dropped from around 65,000) and 1% of their disabled pool (say another 30,000). I'm recovering around 10k per turn from this source.
Their manpower number will go up as they retake places like Minsk but it seems that guessing they will gain say 60-65k per turn is reasonable.
If their permanent losses run in the mid-20s (depending on how active I've been) then that suggests a steady growth and that they will reach say 7m on map at some stage in 1944. By late 1944 this drops as units go East and, more to point, they neither need that many (as the front shortens) nor can supply it in the Reich.
They face the enduring gap in artillery so at some stage it becomes inefficient to carry on fitting out fresh formations. So there is that constraint too.
So the simple assumption is I need to remove say 60k Soviet manpower per turn to keep things equal.
Manpower reserves show the relative pressure on my allies over the last period. I'll disband some Rumanian formations but want to keep the Hungarians if I can.
Realistic goal for the moment is to refit as much as I can, becomes harder to see opportunities to do more than defend but in the end I need to be able to exploit any chance. At worst, as long as the Pzrs are tucked back in reserve, the Soviets need to be careful in any exploitation.
There is also a wider issue of the phasing of Soviet plans. I doubt they are going to share but my instinct is at the moment its all about Odessa and Kyiv. In theory taking Kyiv gives them a secondary route to Minsk but its not ideal. At a wider level, they could generate a huge version of the Bielorrusian balcony for AGC if they push onto Lviv – but again that starts to stretch them badly and I have a lot of strong formations in AGC (just they are locked into AGC).
So a focus just on the Ukraine/Rumania means AGC/N falling back to the Reich in decent order, and in the end their road to victory ends in Berlin (my guess is the auto-win only comes into play by April 1945 in any case).
Now I don't really have any plans, just a framework in which I have to work. Really each crisis point and/or VP point is the 'plan', how to hold on and/or minimise the impact of their gains.
Odessa, which in theory I need to hold till April, is only 8 hexes from the front line. Now this may not be a total disaster (it could be of course), for context I lost Stalino on T100 and held Dnepropetrovsk to T125. Now there was a bit more depth and I was relatively stronger but I need to hold it to T145 to take anything off the time score and T150 to clear the bonus (ie 17 turns).
This has a bearing on the VP and the chance of a win in a year's time. Assuming I've lost everything in the USSR (and thus Helsinki) that is a baseline of +116 (6 time bonus for Helsinki is a given), so that is 579 vs a target of 596, There are potentially 36 time points still available (and of course at the moment only Odessa is the focus). Lose all those bonus and they exceed the HWM (reach 615), so assuming no off map changes, I need to deny 20/36. Or, deny the time gains for say Lviv, Minsk and Riga to put it into context – all those are meant to be lost in the August-October period.
The 60 VP in Rumania remove the HWM as a valid target but it is feasible to retain the VP even if Rumania surrenders. Actually it is a good idea to set up not just to retain the VP for Ploesti and Bucharest but also to destroy as much of the rail net (especially in the east) as possible.
We'll come back to this later.
And I do wish if e-Adolf would stop panicking, this sort of thing just won't happen ...
Not had any off map VP for a while but may still pick up one or two before the Summer? Would be handy, everything gives me just that bit more of a margin.
Not surprisingly, I'm losing agency, its harder to find a spot to hit back and the rewards become more marginal. I still don't think a purely defensive approach works.
Here is the overall layout – at some stage soon the Pripyet will effectively divide the centre from the south (for us both). At first its easy for the Soviets to swap around but as they push west they become more locked into their chosen allocation.
The terrain there is more broken than it was in WiTE1 but its still easy to defend and with poor logistics options. So not ideal for a creative 'Ardennes' style solution but the potential exists.
Over recent turns there has been no real change to the on map numbers but the Soviet reserve seems to be growing steadily. Suspect the cities they have recently retaken will be helping, as with the substantial rate of wounded returns.
At a guess (ie looking at an old save) they will be producing about 3,200*9, so say 30,000 new manpower per turn (its just dropped from around 65,000) and 1% of their disabled pool (say another 30,000). I'm recovering around 10k per turn from this source.
Their manpower number will go up as they retake places like Minsk but it seems that guessing they will gain say 60-65k per turn is reasonable.
If their permanent losses run in the mid-20s (depending on how active I've been) then that suggests a steady growth and that they will reach say 7m on map at some stage in 1944. By late 1944 this drops as units go East and, more to point, they neither need that many (as the front shortens) nor can supply it in the Reich.
They face the enduring gap in artillery so at some stage it becomes inefficient to carry on fitting out fresh formations. So there is that constraint too.
So the simple assumption is I need to remove say 60k Soviet manpower per turn to keep things equal.
Manpower reserves show the relative pressure on my allies over the last period. I'll disband some Rumanian formations but want to keep the Hungarians if I can.
Realistic goal for the moment is to refit as much as I can, becomes harder to see opportunities to do more than defend but in the end I need to be able to exploit any chance. At worst, as long as the Pzrs are tucked back in reserve, the Soviets need to be careful in any exploitation.
There is also a wider issue of the phasing of Soviet plans. I doubt they are going to share but my instinct is at the moment its all about Odessa and Kyiv. In theory taking Kyiv gives them a secondary route to Minsk but its not ideal. At a wider level, they could generate a huge version of the Bielorrusian balcony for AGC if they push onto Lviv – but again that starts to stretch them badly and I have a lot of strong formations in AGC (just they are locked into AGC).
So a focus just on the Ukraine/Rumania means AGC/N falling back to the Reich in decent order, and in the end their road to victory ends in Berlin (my guess is the auto-win only comes into play by April 1945 in any case).
Now I don't really have any plans, just a framework in which I have to work. Really each crisis point and/or VP point is the 'plan', how to hold on and/or minimise the impact of their gains.
Odessa, which in theory I need to hold till April, is only 8 hexes from the front line. Now this may not be a total disaster (it could be of course), for context I lost Stalino on T100 and held Dnepropetrovsk to T125. Now there was a bit more depth and I was relatively stronger but I need to hold it to T145 to take anything off the time score and T150 to clear the bonus (ie 17 turns).
This has a bearing on the VP and the chance of a win in a year's time. Assuming I've lost everything in the USSR (and thus Helsinki) that is a baseline of +116 (6 time bonus for Helsinki is a given), so that is 579 vs a target of 596, There are potentially 36 time points still available (and of course at the moment only Odessa is the focus). Lose all those bonus and they exceed the HWM (reach 615), so assuming no off map changes, I need to deny 20/36. Or, deny the time gains for say Lviv, Minsk and Riga to put it into context – all those are meant to be lost in the August-October period.
The 60 VP in Rumania remove the HWM as a valid target but it is feasible to retain the VP even if Rumania surrenders. Actually it is a good idea to set up not just to retain the VP for Ploesti and Bucharest but also to destroy as much of the rail net (especially in the east) as possible.
We'll come back to this later.
And I do wish if e-Adolf would stop panicking, this sort of thing just won't happen ...
Not had any off map VP for a while but may still pick up one or two before the Summer? Would be handy, everything gives me just that bit more of a margin.
T133 - in a bit more detail
T133 – 2 January 1944
As far as the combat sectors go, weather remains stable at snow/snowfall and ice 6.
Keeping an eye on this is depressing rather than revealing, certainly seems to key more off the length of any supply lines than any of my actions
In the end a fairly calm turn, I spent an age adding up MP, thinking of options but in the end decided I had too many units in need of a refit and better to re-organise both for the split between AGA and AGC due to the Pripyet region and see if I can nail down the approaches to Odessa.
Nothing happened north of this sector but here trying to disentangle the various defensive forces and bring the mobile elements together where I think they will be of most value.
Want to bring 6A to the Kiev sector with 1 PzrA while 4A covers the northern part with elements of 3 Pzr A. Trying to let the Hungarians have a refit.
On the northern sector content for a few turns just to fall back, do need to block any attempt to cross the Bug though.
While the Hungarians remain useful, the Rumanians are mainly of use to dig holes in the ground and act as a delay screen.
Again most of my losses are from the Rumanians.
As a rough rule of thumb, the Soviets are regaining 30k of manpower from disabled per turn and I'm taking back 10k. So the new loss ratio for the turn is say 33,000 Axis and 51,000 Soviet.
At least I can cheer myself up with the air loss ratio.
Pilot situation remains ok
As far as the combat sectors go, weather remains stable at snow/snowfall and ice 6.
Keeping an eye on this is depressing rather than revealing, certainly seems to key more off the length of any supply lines than any of my actions
In the end a fairly calm turn, I spent an age adding up MP, thinking of options but in the end decided I had too many units in need of a refit and better to re-organise both for the split between AGA and AGC due to the Pripyet region and see if I can nail down the approaches to Odessa.
Nothing happened north of this sector but here trying to disentangle the various defensive forces and bring the mobile elements together where I think they will be of most value.
Want to bring 6A to the Kiev sector with 1 PzrA while 4A covers the northern part with elements of 3 Pzr A. Trying to let the Hungarians have a refit.
On the northern sector content for a few turns just to fall back, do need to block any attempt to cross the Bug though.
While the Hungarians remain useful, the Rumanians are mainly of use to dig holes in the ground and act as a delay screen.
Again most of my losses are from the Rumanians.
As a rough rule of thumb, the Soviets are regaining 30k of manpower from disabled per turn and I'm taking back 10k. So the new loss ratio for the turn is say 33,000 Axis and 51,000 Soviet.
At least I can cheer myself up with the air loss ratio.
Pilot situation remains ok
Re: Taming the Tiger or Slaying the Bear......loki100 (Axis) vs Speedy (SU)
not sure what you mean?
It is exactly what is described in the post and section 23.10.2 of the manual
1% of disabled manpower is recovered and returned to the manpower pools each turn. In this case recovery>newly disabled so the Soviet disabled pool shows with a negative number (as its smaller than it was last turn)
As in the discussion, add say 30k to that number and it'll give you an idea how many were newly disabled in the turn
It is exactly what is described in the post and section 23.10.2 of the manual
1% of disabled manpower is recovered and returned to the manpower pools each turn. In this case recovery>newly disabled so the Soviet disabled pool shows with a negative number (as its smaller than it was last turn)
As in the discussion, add say 30k to that number and it'll give you an idea how many were newly disabled in the turn
-
Speedysteve
- Posts: 15974
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Reading, England
Re: Taming the Tiger or Slaying the Bear......loki100 (Axis) vs Speedy (SU)
As always fascinating analysis by my opponent.
Naturally I won't be sharing my plans for the year or providing a map of what HQ's are where.
I can share a few thoughts though. Firstly it'll be no surprise to Loki that all of my Tank/Mech Corps are in the Southern half of the map or in the SR. Even if advancing from Leningrad was my priority the terrain is utterly unsuited to these formations anyway.
Rotation/Refit - I have significantly altered my rotation and refit approach over the past 2-3 months. Traditionally I'd sent a few formations back to SR and left several on map on depots/with HQ's on refit. It works far better (if WAD or not I can't say) to move formations needing a refit straight to the SR. Under my traditional method there'd be formations sitting on depots that wouldn't get any men despite their being men available. Just didn't make sense to me. So by sending them to SR they fill up faster. Naturally I can't and don't have every formation in SR on refit as that breaks the systems and units don't fill up. Despite the con of this method (you lose turns with units moving to and from map and they don't gain any CPP in SR) it has been a better approach IMO since my Army is growing better now, I've more formations that have higher CV value on map etc. It does take co-ordination to ensure you have the right balance of formations on map, in transit and in SR but if I'd done this before I'd be in Bucharest and Lviv by now
NM - With January 1944 here the Axis ground NM drops by 5 points to 60. That means there's only 5 NM delta between the Bad Guys and the Good Guys!
Supply Need - I've no idea what happened here and I can't think of any logical reason why but my supply need for my Men suddenly increased to over 60K from the previous turns need of c.7K. Any ideas why? There were no TOE upgrades or any new Ground element types to account for this:
HQ CP - I hadn't factored this in, until it occurred, but 1944 sees the CP limit for HQ's increase. This is fantastic for Tank Armies! Their traditional CP limit was 11 meaning if you had 3 x Tank/Mech Cps attached to them it would be exceeding it's limit (12/11). Now they've increased to 14 meaning handling 3 of these formations is no problem. Guards Tank Armies now have 16 CP limit meaning they can handle 4. Nice.
Assault HQ's - 1944 means I can now have 4 Fronts on Assault status. Thanks
Unit limits - 1944 sees some interesting alterations to build limits of certain formations. Tank Bde's, Sep Tk Rgt's, Rifle Bde's and of the Bn/Rgt Artillery limits have decreased. Interestingly, Rocket Divisions have gone! Luckily I had built the 8 I was allowed before. Tank/Mech Cps limits are the same, Rifle Corps limits have increased as have SU Bde's and Artillery Division limits. I don't have the spare artillery for more Artillery Divisions right now. I may disband some of my Artillery Bn's Rgt's to free up some guns for Breakthrough Artillery Divisions. A tidbit I learnt with Medium SU Rgt's. I originally built 40 of each of he Light, Medium and Heavy SU Rgt's. It was too many of the Medium SU Rgt's. You see they take the Su-122. Production runs from 1-12/43 when it upgrades to the ISU-152. However, ISU-152's will not (naturally) go into Medium SU Rgt's. The medium SU Rgt's will TOE upgrade in 02/44 when they will take on SU-85 Tank Destroyers. Just be aware of this gap in their use until they upgrade.
I could produce more Tank and Mech Corps but right now I don't have enough excess Tank production to account for them so it would just leave me with more weaker formations. If through 1944 when the Bad Guys start to run out of Wurst then I may well do so.
just some musings from my side.....
Naturally I won't be sharing my plans for the year or providing a map of what HQ's are where.
I can share a few thoughts though. Firstly it'll be no surprise to Loki that all of my Tank/Mech Corps are in the Southern half of the map or in the SR. Even if advancing from Leningrad was my priority the terrain is utterly unsuited to these formations anyway.
Rotation/Refit - I have significantly altered my rotation and refit approach over the past 2-3 months. Traditionally I'd sent a few formations back to SR and left several on map on depots/with HQ's on refit. It works far better (if WAD or not I can't say) to move formations needing a refit straight to the SR. Under my traditional method there'd be formations sitting on depots that wouldn't get any men despite their being men available. Just didn't make sense to me. So by sending them to SR they fill up faster. Naturally I can't and don't have every formation in SR on refit as that breaks the systems and units don't fill up. Despite the con of this method (you lose turns with units moving to and from map and they don't gain any CPP in SR) it has been a better approach IMO since my Army is growing better now, I've more formations that have higher CV value on map etc. It does take co-ordination to ensure you have the right balance of formations on map, in transit and in SR but if I'd done this before I'd be in Bucharest and Lviv by now
NM - With January 1944 here the Axis ground NM drops by 5 points to 60. That means there's only 5 NM delta between the Bad Guys and the Good Guys!
Supply Need - I've no idea what happened here and I can't think of any logical reason why but my supply need for my Men suddenly increased to over 60K from the previous turns need of c.7K. Any ideas why? There were no TOE upgrades or any new Ground element types to account for this:
- Untitled.jpg (12.34 KiB) Viewed 2098 times
Assault HQ's - 1944 means I can now have 4 Fronts on Assault status. Thanks
Unit limits - 1944 sees some interesting alterations to build limits of certain formations. Tank Bde's, Sep Tk Rgt's, Rifle Bde's and of the Bn/Rgt Artillery limits have decreased. Interestingly, Rocket Divisions have gone! Luckily I had built the 8 I was allowed before. Tank/Mech Cps limits are the same, Rifle Corps limits have increased as have SU Bde's and Artillery Division limits. I don't have the spare artillery for more Artillery Divisions right now. I may disband some of my Artillery Bn's Rgt's to free up some guns for Breakthrough Artillery Divisions. A tidbit I learnt with Medium SU Rgt's. I originally built 40 of each of he Light, Medium and Heavy SU Rgt's. It was too many of the Medium SU Rgt's. You see they take the Su-122. Production runs from 1-12/43 when it upgrades to the ISU-152. However, ISU-152's will not (naturally) go into Medium SU Rgt's. The medium SU Rgt's will TOE upgrade in 02/44 when they will take on SU-85 Tank Destroyers. Just be aware of this gap in their use until they upgrade.
I could produce more Tank and Mech Corps but right now I don't have enough excess Tank production to account for them so it would just leave me with more weaker formations. If through 1944 when the Bad Guys start to run out of Wurst then I may well do so.
just some musings from my side.....
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
T134
T134 – 9 January 1944
Well, I'll take cheering up where I can – I promise to cherish that admin pt and put it to real use.
Equally the 'depressing truck watch' suddenly becomes a bit more cheerful
Weather much the same snowfall/snow, ice 6.
North of Kiev no Soviet attacks, did a lot of shuffling, pull back to let them have the supply problems (I was actually starting to run into a problem of 30 MP Pzr divisions – too low for safety).
For the moment, trying to use the Hungarians as reserves and this is rebuilding their manpower reserve.
17A carries on just retreating. Happy to let 1 PzrA have a rest, I may need to swap assets with 4 Pzr A depending on how the next phase develops.
Also carry on slotting into place my Rumanian defensive plan. At worst things could go very bad along the Black Sea.
Last turn my deployment along the lower Bug (and the ferry hexes) was ad-hoc and the Soviets managed to establish a bridgehead.
I'm not that keen on head on attacks but sometimes have no choice – due to the ferry control I couldn't isolate their bridgehead but still partially cut it off.
And then drove them back over the rivers.
The only good bit is that confirms how poor my infantry now are on the attack and at least most of my tank losses were Pzr III.
Was tempted to spend another turn building up but that helps me set up a fairly solid line on the immediate direction towards Odessa.
The rail net makes it a bit harder for the Soviets to outflank to the north till they engage with my main defensive line.
So first major crisis – doubt it will be the last. But I've presented the Soviets with the choice of a hard slog to Odessa or try their luck elsewhere. For the moment I can actually close off options, even if it weakens me eslewhere.
Losses are a bit misleading. Add say 10,000 to mine (so around 30,000) and 30,000 to the Soviets (so around 40,000). Near one to one losses are not my ideal but sometimes just have to stabilise a situation (at least I hope I've stabilised it). Going back to the wider discussion post, I reckon the Soviets gain around 60k men per turn, so that has cost them 25k.
Big numbers much the same. They have taken a net 100k off the map but their reserve is down 120k and 800 tanks. So some sounds like normal rotation but the equivalent of a tank army on its way to the map?
Looking over the reinforcement chart to April, I am due 6 infantry and 2 SS Pzr divisions (but these mostly in March or early April), but that is balanced by the loss of 2 Pzr division and one infantry division. At least they are going near to full strength so that helps a little in terme of meeting the TB expectations.
I lose a lot more in April-June, seems that e-Adolf is becoming really paranoid.
Brief reflection on logistics. Globally I'm fine but in the summer I had the Pzr armies on pri 4 and the rest on 3. Over recent turns, this has given me a problem with mobile formations with MP in the high 20s (plenty of others are still 45+). So I reorganised to a pattern of 2/3, and reset some depots to 3. The net effect has been to recover my mobility.
If I am to attack to any value, a single Pzr corps is not enough, I need to concentrate an entire Pzr Army (pref elements of a second). Since I equally need defensive reserves spread out, my safety net is very high mobility.
Well, I'll take cheering up where I can – I promise to cherish that admin pt and put it to real use.
Equally the 'depressing truck watch' suddenly becomes a bit more cheerful
Weather much the same snowfall/snow, ice 6.
North of Kiev no Soviet attacks, did a lot of shuffling, pull back to let them have the supply problems (I was actually starting to run into a problem of 30 MP Pzr divisions – too low for safety).
For the moment, trying to use the Hungarians as reserves and this is rebuilding their manpower reserve.
17A carries on just retreating. Happy to let 1 PzrA have a rest, I may need to swap assets with 4 Pzr A depending on how the next phase develops.
Also carry on slotting into place my Rumanian defensive plan. At worst things could go very bad along the Black Sea.
Last turn my deployment along the lower Bug (and the ferry hexes) was ad-hoc and the Soviets managed to establish a bridgehead.
I'm not that keen on head on attacks but sometimes have no choice – due to the ferry control I couldn't isolate their bridgehead but still partially cut it off.
And then drove them back over the rivers.
The only good bit is that confirms how poor my infantry now are on the attack and at least most of my tank losses were Pzr III.
Was tempted to spend another turn building up but that helps me set up a fairly solid line on the immediate direction towards Odessa.
The rail net makes it a bit harder for the Soviets to outflank to the north till they engage with my main defensive line.
So first major crisis – doubt it will be the last. But I've presented the Soviets with the choice of a hard slog to Odessa or try their luck elsewhere. For the moment I can actually close off options, even if it weakens me eslewhere.
Losses are a bit misleading. Add say 10,000 to mine (so around 30,000) and 30,000 to the Soviets (so around 40,000). Near one to one losses are not my ideal but sometimes just have to stabilise a situation (at least I hope I've stabilised it). Going back to the wider discussion post, I reckon the Soviets gain around 60k men per turn, so that has cost them 25k.
Big numbers much the same. They have taken a net 100k off the map but their reserve is down 120k and 800 tanks. So some sounds like normal rotation but the equivalent of a tank army on its way to the map?
Looking over the reinforcement chart to April, I am due 6 infantry and 2 SS Pzr divisions (but these mostly in March or early April), but that is balanced by the loss of 2 Pzr division and one infantry division. At least they are going near to full strength so that helps a little in terme of meeting the TB expectations.
I lose a lot more in April-June, seems that e-Adolf is becoming really paranoid.
Brief reflection on logistics. Globally I'm fine but in the summer I had the Pzr armies on pri 4 and the rest on 3. Over recent turns, this has given me a problem with mobile formations with MP in the high 20s (plenty of others are still 45+). So I reorganised to a pattern of 2/3, and reset some depots to 3. The net effect has been to recover my mobility.
If I am to attack to any value, a single Pzr corps is not enough, I need to concentrate an entire Pzr Army (pref elements of a second). Since I equally need defensive reserves spread out, my safety net is very high mobility.
T135-T136
T135 – 16 January 1944
Weather stays predictable, snowfall/snow/ice6. No hint of any change for next week.
The critical 'cheer myself up by watching the Soviets crash their own trucks' metric ... remains, quite cheering. Even with LL etc, that is about 20% of their per turn allocation.
In fact they managed to kill almost 16,000 of their own men [1], but then I got rid of 6,000 of mine in the logistics phase – seems that being fed etc is dangerous in this war.
Anyway, overall very little happened, I gave up ground where I wanted to, refitted as much as I can release and re-organised for the phase where I want to stand and hold for a few turns.
While its clear the Soviets are also resting and building up, I'll take any break in the operational tempo I can have.
No change to the Soviet total (that is still just over 8m) but up 300k men and 1,000 tanks on map, reserve is only down 150k which suggests other formations going back. But does suggest a lot of fresh formations, even if it takes them a turn or so to redeploy, gain some CPP etc.
T136 – 23 January 1944
Soviet self-inflicted truck accidents down a bit, have decided to try low level interdiction again on a few sectors where I think they have relatively long (and cross-river) traces.
Weather keeps to snow/snowfall/ice 6 and no expected change for next week.
Anyway, after many reports of nothing in the north, I can report that something happened. Not sure if this marks a sustained effort or just an attempt to clear the dual rail to Leongrad.
Elsewhere nothing happened, I made the last steps back to the Kyiv defensive position and finished sorting out the split between 6 and 4 Armies on the Gomel-Kyiv sector.
Equally 17A fell back to its planned defensive line – have no illusions that this will hold but it won't fall off the march. So that is a 2-3 turns delay.
Soviets failed to force the Bug. My fighters had a competition to see who could shoot down the most different collection of Soviet assets. As typical at this stage, a real mix of skill levels for the VVS. But I can no longer win easily if outnumbered, so starting to make sure my JG formations are deployed in relatively small clusters.
Losses unremarkable over those 2 turns, to some extent we both gain by a pause, but ... I need to be inflicting losses around 60k a turn. And the sort of baseline is 26k Soviet losses a turn, so that excess can be used to refit or even create new formations.
Big numbers, Soviets up 240k on map since T133 and 140k in the reserve. Their global number is much the same so this is churn not the creation of fresh formations. They are up a net 1200 tanks on map, which suggests fresh mobile formations have been deployed.
No real change on my side, except the reserve is even more empty.
Manpower pools, mine have recovered and that helps with refit.
Since turn of the year, I've managed to refit the Hungarian units (a few now have low experience but that will sort itself out) and a small increase in the German reserve. Rumania much less important now, they are a short term asset. Disbanded a few of their more wrecked divisions as no real gain to near new build formations plagued with low experience.
All the TB are postive in respect to demand.
[1] Yes I know this is not what that line reflects, but let me have what fun I can manage.
Weather stays predictable, snowfall/snow/ice6. No hint of any change for next week.
The critical 'cheer myself up by watching the Soviets crash their own trucks' metric ... remains, quite cheering. Even with LL etc, that is about 20% of their per turn allocation.
In fact they managed to kill almost 16,000 of their own men [1], but then I got rid of 6,000 of mine in the logistics phase – seems that being fed etc is dangerous in this war.
Anyway, overall very little happened, I gave up ground where I wanted to, refitted as much as I can release and re-organised for the phase where I want to stand and hold for a few turns.
While its clear the Soviets are also resting and building up, I'll take any break in the operational tempo I can have.
No change to the Soviet total (that is still just over 8m) but up 300k men and 1,000 tanks on map, reserve is only down 150k which suggests other formations going back. But does suggest a lot of fresh formations, even if it takes them a turn or so to redeploy, gain some CPP etc.
T136 – 23 January 1944
Soviet self-inflicted truck accidents down a bit, have decided to try low level interdiction again on a few sectors where I think they have relatively long (and cross-river) traces.
Weather keeps to snow/snowfall/ice 6 and no expected change for next week.
Anyway, after many reports of nothing in the north, I can report that something happened. Not sure if this marks a sustained effort or just an attempt to clear the dual rail to Leongrad.
Elsewhere nothing happened, I made the last steps back to the Kyiv defensive position and finished sorting out the split between 6 and 4 Armies on the Gomel-Kyiv sector.
Equally 17A fell back to its planned defensive line – have no illusions that this will hold but it won't fall off the march. So that is a 2-3 turns delay.
Soviets failed to force the Bug. My fighters had a competition to see who could shoot down the most different collection of Soviet assets. As typical at this stage, a real mix of skill levels for the VVS. But I can no longer win easily if outnumbered, so starting to make sure my JG formations are deployed in relatively small clusters.
Losses unremarkable over those 2 turns, to some extent we both gain by a pause, but ... I need to be inflicting losses around 60k a turn. And the sort of baseline is 26k Soviet losses a turn, so that excess can be used to refit or even create new formations.
Big numbers, Soviets up 240k on map since T133 and 140k in the reserve. Their global number is much the same so this is churn not the creation of fresh formations. They are up a net 1200 tanks on map, which suggests fresh mobile formations have been deployed.
No real change on my side, except the reserve is even more empty.
Manpower pools, mine have recovered and that helps with refit.
Since turn of the year, I've managed to refit the Hungarian units (a few now have low experience but that will sort itself out) and a small increase in the German reserve. Rumania much less important now, they are a short term asset. Disbanded a few of their more wrecked divisions as no real gain to near new build formations plagued with low experience.
All the TB are postive in respect to demand.
[1] Yes I know this is not what that line reflects, but let me have what fun I can manage.
T137 - I actually defend an urban hex
T137 – 30 January 1944
Well I seem to have survived January without any additional, massive, disasters. Clearly things are going wrong on some sectors but I'm not expecting to hold the current front by the end of 1944.
From now on, badly hit divisions stay at low cv, so I have quite a mix of still strong formations and those that have seen heavy combat. It seems they retain the elements from the 1943 TOE till they enter sustained combat – and adapt to the 1944 TOE. Of course, its just going to become worse as things go forward.
So seeking some solace – thats nice, keep on telling e-Adolf to stop panicking (that gives me a net +5 from events since July 1943).
This less so.
Weather much the same where it matters (and for next turn).
Soviet offensive near Leningrad carries on, no sign of any mobile assets so for the moment I can absorb this, but it seems to have spooked Finland. Still just meet the ground requirement, did send a few SU to this box a while back and that is useful.
Worth noting that everything in the Finland box is recovered when it changes sides. A little bit will need to be allocated to Norway but overall its quite a gain.
Some of that has scheduled withdrawals but mostly not till T180+.
Another long quiet zone saw some action, their attempt to seize Smolensk directly failed badly.
Should note this is being played using a beta version that seeks to address some of the earlier problems with urban hexes. If so that looks good, it cost them seriously but it was scarcely an easy win (and, of course, I really shouldn't have had a Pzr division in the hex).
Mostly quiet along the rest of the front. A few attacks NE of Gomel, at least where it fails it costs them. LW gave the VVS a bit of a shoeing.
Around Kiev, Soviets reach my first defensive line. 1 PzrA is pulled back to discourage any attempts at exploitation – for the moment I'm not committing to my own attacks and would rather encourage them to stick to one hex here or there.
My defensive line on the Bug held again.
Losses.
Again adjust for returning disabled so mine were around 24,000 and the Soviets 69,000.
Not seeing much of these new heavy tanks they are boasting about.
Air war is variable, but I still have good turns, this is allowing me to rebuild my trained pilot pools.
All things being equal, not too bad for tanks. Would be nice to have more slots for the Tigers but they are also concentrated on specific sectors.
The gap to actually fill out all my slots is a little bit large.
Big numbers, no real on map changes (I've units being withdrawn), Soviet grand total the same but 100k lower in the reserve (so I assume on their way to the map).
My reserve is mostly formations being allocated there by the reinforcement schedule. But have pulled a few weaker SU off map.
Overall, have to be pragmatic, every turn without a disaster is a good turn. Am a bit worried at their northern offensive but my guess is it will run out steam fairly soon – unless there are a lot of reserves (can't see them from some limited recon).
If forced to it, could assign assets from AGC where I have a decent local reserve.
Weather is not going to change, so I have no obvious gaps in the operational tempo to look forward to.
Only need to hold Odessa for 13 turns and that denies them any time bonus there.
Well I seem to have survived January without any additional, massive, disasters. Clearly things are going wrong on some sectors but I'm not expecting to hold the current front by the end of 1944.
From now on, badly hit divisions stay at low cv, so I have quite a mix of still strong formations and those that have seen heavy combat. It seems they retain the elements from the 1943 TOE till they enter sustained combat – and adapt to the 1944 TOE. Of course, its just going to become worse as things go forward.
So seeking some solace – thats nice, keep on telling e-Adolf to stop panicking (that gives me a net +5 from events since July 1943).
This less so.
Weather much the same where it matters (and for next turn).
Soviet offensive near Leningrad carries on, no sign of any mobile assets so for the moment I can absorb this, but it seems to have spooked Finland. Still just meet the ground requirement, did send a few SU to this box a while back and that is useful.
Worth noting that everything in the Finland box is recovered when it changes sides. A little bit will need to be allocated to Norway but overall its quite a gain.
Some of that has scheduled withdrawals but mostly not till T180+.
Another long quiet zone saw some action, their attempt to seize Smolensk directly failed badly.
Should note this is being played using a beta version that seeks to address some of the earlier problems with urban hexes. If so that looks good, it cost them seriously but it was scarcely an easy win (and, of course, I really shouldn't have had a Pzr division in the hex).
Mostly quiet along the rest of the front. A few attacks NE of Gomel, at least where it fails it costs them. LW gave the VVS a bit of a shoeing.
Around Kiev, Soviets reach my first defensive line. 1 PzrA is pulled back to discourage any attempts at exploitation – for the moment I'm not committing to my own attacks and would rather encourage them to stick to one hex here or there.
My defensive line on the Bug held again.
Losses.
Again adjust for returning disabled so mine were around 24,000 and the Soviets 69,000.
Not seeing much of these new heavy tanks they are boasting about.
Air war is variable, but I still have good turns, this is allowing me to rebuild my trained pilot pools.
All things being equal, not too bad for tanks. Would be nice to have more slots for the Tigers but they are also concentrated on specific sectors.
The gap to actually fill out all my slots is a little bit large.
Big numbers, no real on map changes (I've units being withdrawn), Soviet grand total the same but 100k lower in the reserve (so I assume on their way to the map).
My reserve is mostly formations being allocated there by the reinforcement schedule. But have pulled a few weaker SU off map.
Overall, have to be pragmatic, every turn without a disaster is a good turn. Am a bit worried at their northern offensive but my guess is it will run out steam fairly soon – unless there are a lot of reserves (can't see them from some limited recon).
If forced to it, could assign assets from AGC where I have a decent local reserve.
Weather is not going to change, so I have no obvious gaps in the operational tempo to look forward to.
Only need to hold Odessa for 13 turns and that denies them any time bonus there.
T138
T138 – 6 February 1944
Seems to indicate the Italy box is one or two turns slow. But the shift in combat intensity is another drain on my reserves and production.
Their accident rate seems to be fairly consistent.
So a variety of offensives by the Soviets.
Keep attacking in the north, as in the last post, in the end they can have this sector but I'd like to control the loss. In my broad model, the time bonus for Pskov and Talinin (esp Talinin) are not feasible to deny (more strictly, if I retain them, then I am very well placed to win vs the HWM), and of course Finland is both a guarenteed loss and has the payback of all those nice mountain divisions.
If I need to, I can deploy some of the late winter reinforcements here, but rather suspect there will be other, more pressing, demands.
Single attack around Smolensk, happy to sit in my defensive lines for the moment.
More activity around Gomel, decided to take out their mobile assets with some counter-blows, while this sector is of no particular value (apart from the poor terrain) it does open a route to Minsk that I would like to deny them.
Fits into my wider decision making. Broadly, unused, my Pzrs encourage the Soviets to linear, narrow attacks. So that is an argument to sitting on the defensive. But in the end even this will mount up to something serious (again I think they have 10-11 turns before the weather worsens), so can't just be passive. No point attacking their stronger stacks head on (unless I have a really good reason) and equally no point on a quiet sector (its not as if I threaten their rear areas). So this fitted perfectly, from recon they have little reserves, they had the exploitation units in the front line – on balance worth expended a couple of Pzr divisions to give them pause?
Kyiv sector was quiet. They are probing 17A's defensive line but the one breach cost them a lot – especially when I chucked them back out.
Also shows the reward for my LW redeployment, if I match their numbers, I can win dramatically.
Even where they broke through (and I let them have their gains) clearing one of my prepared defensive lines is costly.
Well, the good bits here is most of my losses were Rumanian, I'm still holding the lower Bug and 4 Pzr A has fully recovered from the earlier battles. I deliberately committed a lot of recon assets to gain a better idea and, as feared, there are a lot of Tank and Mech corps in reserve. Handy to have the bulk of 2 Pzr Armies available.
Big numbers
I've just lost another Pzr division to the West (e-Adolf is becoming really annoying), hence the drop, other than that mine are static. I had a few reinforcements hence the numbers in my reserve – I'll send them somewhere useful very soon.
Soviets up about 100,000 on map (so 3 Rifle Corps?), no change to their tank numbers but very kindly they have deployed more planes for me to shoot down. Their overall total is static but 100k less in the reserve (which matches).
Losses up, again add say 10k to mine (so 32k) and 30k to the Soviets (so 82k), even a limited set of counter-attacks can shift this in my favour – just I can't keep doing it. But that is one turn where their immediate losses outnumber their reinforcements. Seems I have found their shiny new tanks – easy enough to blow up
Air losses, I lost a number of recon assets but I wanted to gain some feeling for where their reserves were. Even with that, a good rate of return.
Weather, exactly the same, but this is indicative of the dynamics for next winter, heavy rain all over the Reich.
So, all things being equal, not too bad. Losing ground in the north, and ideally I don't want to commit my limited reserves there – even worse to weaken elsewhere to do so. Clear they are serious about Odessa but I can (just about) handle a single pressure point.
For the moment the 17A fortified line is doing what I intended, its slowed them, may force them to concentrate, and will inflict heavy losses to clear. Of course its a long way back to the next such line.
On the Bug, I'm gambling on holding strong points, they need to deal with them (I think), if they go for a pocket that gives me ready targets.
Rumanians are very low on reserve manpower, have scrapped a few divisions, Hungarians recovered and I have plenty of German manpower (in part as I've just scrapped the FZ that created the current defensive lines).
As an aside, I've started adding construction battalions to these, that gets them digging trenches much quicker and, where I have the supply, I think I can go from 0 to 2 in about 4 turns.
Seems to indicate the Italy box is one or two turns slow. But the shift in combat intensity is another drain on my reserves and production.
Their accident rate seems to be fairly consistent.
So a variety of offensives by the Soviets.
Keep attacking in the north, as in the last post, in the end they can have this sector but I'd like to control the loss. In my broad model, the time bonus for Pskov and Talinin (esp Talinin) are not feasible to deny (more strictly, if I retain them, then I am very well placed to win vs the HWM), and of course Finland is both a guarenteed loss and has the payback of all those nice mountain divisions.
If I need to, I can deploy some of the late winter reinforcements here, but rather suspect there will be other, more pressing, demands.
Single attack around Smolensk, happy to sit in my defensive lines for the moment.
More activity around Gomel, decided to take out their mobile assets with some counter-blows, while this sector is of no particular value (apart from the poor terrain) it does open a route to Minsk that I would like to deny them.
Fits into my wider decision making. Broadly, unused, my Pzrs encourage the Soviets to linear, narrow attacks. So that is an argument to sitting on the defensive. But in the end even this will mount up to something serious (again I think they have 10-11 turns before the weather worsens), so can't just be passive. No point attacking their stronger stacks head on (unless I have a really good reason) and equally no point on a quiet sector (its not as if I threaten their rear areas). So this fitted perfectly, from recon they have little reserves, they had the exploitation units in the front line – on balance worth expended a couple of Pzr divisions to give them pause?
Kyiv sector was quiet. They are probing 17A's defensive line but the one breach cost them a lot – especially when I chucked them back out.
Also shows the reward for my LW redeployment, if I match their numbers, I can win dramatically.
Even where they broke through (and I let them have their gains) clearing one of my prepared defensive lines is costly.
Well, the good bits here is most of my losses were Rumanian, I'm still holding the lower Bug and 4 Pzr A has fully recovered from the earlier battles. I deliberately committed a lot of recon assets to gain a better idea and, as feared, there are a lot of Tank and Mech corps in reserve. Handy to have the bulk of 2 Pzr Armies available.
Big numbers
I've just lost another Pzr division to the West (e-Adolf is becoming really annoying), hence the drop, other than that mine are static. I had a few reinforcements hence the numbers in my reserve – I'll send them somewhere useful very soon.
Soviets up about 100,000 on map (so 3 Rifle Corps?), no change to their tank numbers but very kindly they have deployed more planes for me to shoot down. Their overall total is static but 100k less in the reserve (which matches).
Losses up, again add say 10k to mine (so 32k) and 30k to the Soviets (so 82k), even a limited set of counter-attacks can shift this in my favour – just I can't keep doing it. But that is one turn where their immediate losses outnumber their reinforcements. Seems I have found their shiny new tanks – easy enough to blow up
Air losses, I lost a number of recon assets but I wanted to gain some feeling for where their reserves were. Even with that, a good rate of return.
Weather, exactly the same, but this is indicative of the dynamics for next winter, heavy rain all over the Reich.
So, all things being equal, not too bad. Losing ground in the north, and ideally I don't want to commit my limited reserves there – even worse to weaken elsewhere to do so. Clear they are serious about Odessa but I can (just about) handle a single pressure point.
For the moment the 17A fortified line is doing what I intended, its slowed them, may force them to concentrate, and will inflict heavy losses to clear. Of course its a long way back to the next such line.
On the Bug, I'm gambling on holding strong points, they need to deal with them (I think), if they go for a pocket that gives me ready targets.
Rumanians are very low on reserve manpower, have scrapped a few divisions, Hungarians recovered and I have plenty of German manpower (in part as I've just scrapped the FZ that created the current defensive lines).
As an aside, I've started adding construction battalions to these, that gets them digging trenches much quicker and, where I have the supply, I think I can go from 0 to 2 in about 4 turns.
-
Speedysteve
- Posts: 15974
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Reading, England
Re: Taming the Tiger or Slaying the Bear......loki100 (Axis) vs Speedy (SU)
Well....figured I'd pop in and write a short update my side. Especially since the turn I've just sent back to Loki (the one after his report above) was one of my most fun in planning and running for a while. I suspect it will also lead to a massive series of Tank Battle in response by Loki so wanted to set the scene for his next report.....
Firstly, 'Up North'.....my military operation continues un-abated. Smashed the silly little Axis Infantry Divisions that were in the way. It's good fun up here at the moment. A smart dude drinking vodka after smashing the 8th Jaeger Division back worked out he was only 870 miles from Berlin....weeeeeee....
Now...to the main event....It's been clear for a while (and as Loki says) I want Odessa. It's mine. I'd been letting the infantry do their thing for a while but had several fresh and rested Tank/Mech Corps (can't say how many as there's some in Reserve and in the follow up for next turn) for the next phase down here. One thing I will say before I forget....the darn Major Rivers being stuck at Ice Level 6 is a MASSIVE PITA in terms of crossing and movement. So after last turn it was time to be serious down here. I'm aware Loki has at least 7-8 Armoured formations behind his lines but I have to do something and have to engage them at some point in time. So I ZOC locked some Roms and encircled an Infantry Division. As I mentioned to Loki in e-mail I feel he has a choice now - he can either cut his losses and fall back (and accept losing a few Divisions) or he can try to rescue them with his Panzers BUT that will leave his Panzers weakened after their attack and on the frontline where my secondary elements can tackle them next week. Knowing Loki and how he's played so far I expect he'll counter-attack hence me posting this as there'll be some serious Tank losses next turn....
Firstly, 'Up North'.....my military operation continues un-abated. Smashed the silly little Axis Infantry Divisions that were in the way. It's good fun up here at the moment. A smart dude drinking vodka after smashing the 8th Jaeger Division back worked out he was only 870 miles from Berlin....weeeeeee....
- Untitled.jpg (932.87 KiB) Viewed 1632 times
- Untitled1.jpg (133.46 KiB) Viewed 1632 times
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
T139 - driving back the Soviet offensive
T139 – 13 February 1944
Ok, you've all read the Soviet version of this turn.
First impression when I got the turn was that was a lot of Soviet units going somewhere else? Or lost manpower.
Their usual accident rate, don't think this is proving as informative as I'd hoped. Hard to come up with metrics for this stage as we have no real points of comparison. But broadly this has flatlined, suggesting its the impact of the weather rather than anything else.
Anyway lets start the serious stuff in the north.
Their lack of mobile assets is helping here (its all that is saving me from a disaster), don't want to reinforce so will try and get a pause by falling back, if anything is properly encircled then its lost.
That basically abandons Finland – as discussed this is not such an issue as there was no defending the time bonus (and the mountain divisions will prove very useful). If I recall, once Kingisepp and Novgorod are taken that triggers an event chain that runs for about 10 turns then Finland signs the armistice.
Not much on the AGC sectors, couple of small gains at Smolensk, my defensive lines around Gomel held.
Which of course leads us to the focus of their activities.
1 PzrA was well placed to deal with the incursions south of Kyiv. So after a lot of thinking decided the best solution was to try and block off this sector first. Managed to keep one corps fresh and still manage the usual isolate and rout routine.
That is 3 Mech Corps that won't be a problem next week.
The lower Bug was more of a problem. In the end reasonably content with this. Fairly cynical, I left some formations on the river (in level 3 forts) – getting past them will impose a high MP cost, encircling them either means a shallow penetration of risking being very strung out. About half my formations were used to push back the spearheads so I have quite a lot fresh.
Its the line of the Dnestr that matters, and no point falling back on it utterly shattered. But I want that to be the summer battle line, not late winter.
No idea how risky not falling back substantially will prove to be. At one level, apart from Odessa, I have space to trade here – and around 10 turns till the spring rains to try and survive. On the other hand, across those battles that is a lot of wrecked Soviet mobile formations and I've managed to extract my Pzrs from the front lines.
Not surprisingly that turn had quite the butcher's bill. As usual add about 10k to mine (so say 46,000 lost) and 30k to the Soviets (around 100,000 lost).
Air war was more even than I'd like. A number of air groups sent back to retrain.
Big numbers do reflect that turn. I'm down a net 25k men and 300 tanks. They are 60k men and 1,600 tanks. Looks like another 90k has been pulled from their reserve. But for the first time, their grand total is down by 100k.
Oddly their manpower reserve is up – which suggests a degree of scrapping stuff – may explain the change in their reserve numbers.
While I'd rather not lose any formations, I have the means to rebuild, just they will then be off map for some time as they train up.
No reason to expect a change in the weather for next turn.
Ok, you've all read the Soviet version of this turn.
First impression when I got the turn was that was a lot of Soviet units going somewhere else? Or lost manpower.
Their usual accident rate, don't think this is proving as informative as I'd hoped. Hard to come up with metrics for this stage as we have no real points of comparison. But broadly this has flatlined, suggesting its the impact of the weather rather than anything else.
Anyway lets start the serious stuff in the north.
Their lack of mobile assets is helping here (its all that is saving me from a disaster), don't want to reinforce so will try and get a pause by falling back, if anything is properly encircled then its lost.
That basically abandons Finland – as discussed this is not such an issue as there was no defending the time bonus (and the mountain divisions will prove very useful). If I recall, once Kingisepp and Novgorod are taken that triggers an event chain that runs for about 10 turns then Finland signs the armistice.
Not much on the AGC sectors, couple of small gains at Smolensk, my defensive lines around Gomel held.
Which of course leads us to the focus of their activities.
1 PzrA was well placed to deal with the incursions south of Kyiv. So after a lot of thinking decided the best solution was to try and block off this sector first. Managed to keep one corps fresh and still manage the usual isolate and rout routine.
That is 3 Mech Corps that won't be a problem next week.
The lower Bug was more of a problem. In the end reasonably content with this. Fairly cynical, I left some formations on the river (in level 3 forts) – getting past them will impose a high MP cost, encircling them either means a shallow penetration of risking being very strung out. About half my formations were used to push back the spearheads so I have quite a lot fresh.
Its the line of the Dnestr that matters, and no point falling back on it utterly shattered. But I want that to be the summer battle line, not late winter.
No idea how risky not falling back substantially will prove to be. At one level, apart from Odessa, I have space to trade here – and around 10 turns till the spring rains to try and survive. On the other hand, across those battles that is a lot of wrecked Soviet mobile formations and I've managed to extract my Pzrs from the front lines.
Not surprisingly that turn had quite the butcher's bill. As usual add about 10k to mine (so say 46,000 lost) and 30k to the Soviets (around 100,000 lost).
Air war was more even than I'd like. A number of air groups sent back to retrain.
Big numbers do reflect that turn. I'm down a net 25k men and 300 tanks. They are 60k men and 1,600 tanks. Looks like another 90k has been pulled from their reserve. But for the first time, their grand total is down by 100k.
Oddly their manpower reserve is up – which suggests a degree of scrapping stuff – may explain the change in their reserve numbers.
While I'd rather not lose any formations, I have the means to rebuild, just they will then be off map for some time as they train up.
No reason to expect a change in the weather for next turn.
An End
Ok, we've discussed this and have decided to end it here. Steven will add his bit but that last counter-stroke basically broke the back of the Soviet armoured forces leaving a huge gap till the T34/85 comes really available (and that is not till June).
So yes Odessa will fall, no doubt I'll cede Kyiv and at some stage pull out of Smolensk but the capacity to put me under sustained pressure has just been lost.
Its feasible he'll reach the HWM but not a guarentee but he's facing a good 3-4 months of game play basically stuck.
So some quick views.
This is only the 2nd time I've played the Axis in a 1941 GC (the first was during the alpha testing with a game that got to late 42 before a save breaking patch ended it). We started with the release patch, so have played across all the vagaries of the patching process post-release (actually more than most as we've used unreleased betas to test them out).
1) Broadly I did ok for the first 10 or so turns, lots to do different but broadly I had an idea and stuck to it (not all the idea was good, hence a Pzr corps wandering the Valdai)
2) I then got excited by lots of squirrels and spent 6 turns doing a bit of this and a bit of that - well that ended as expected
3) The first winter is grim, but I'd set up a good logistics system, only lost one VP city and stalled them just east of Smolensk
4) The summer of 1942 was tedious, I never got going it was endless ZoC and reserve reactions. But I did make full use of the fragility of the Soviets (that 45 NM really hurts), so retreats became routs and I carved out a steady stream of small pockets, as:
In total that period cost them 2.4m men
5) at the end of that I was really worried, the late 42/early 43 thresholds for an auto win for the Soviets are low and I had almost no HWM to rely on. As it was, that period passed with no real drama and I was able to construct a solid defensive line that did me for most of 1943 (and managed a few more pockets in the early phase) - this is the inverse of my awful 1942, I had a fresh army with high morale sat in level 3 forts and in excellent supply
6) for the last 3 months I've been falling back in the south and husbanding the Pzrs. I almost never had them in the front lines where they could be battered by Rifle Corps. Not all my attempts to lash back worked but on balance I landed some deadly blows.
7) I've worked out how to generate level 2 forts in about 4 turns, early on I was planning these months in advance, towards the end they were being put together just behind the current front.
Things that are pro-Axis
I realise its now standard to moan the game is biased, and its frustrating to see so many axis players give up when they could still win. Its worth restating the game is designed around either an axis auto win in late 42 or the 1944 HWM test.
a) I had far too much mobility, in the south when Steven made his big offensive I had 2 Pzr armies and they could swap assets with ease, so I had 7 Pzr corps that had 40+ MP, that allowed me to rebalance to deal with his incursions rather than worry about anticipation
b) the LW is effective even to this stage if you are careful about deployment, as may be clear I tried all sorts of odd stunts but the core was GS with this delivered by the placement of my assets, especially the fighters
c) The loss of Finland is an 'I win' for the Axis
d) the loss of N Africa yields some rather nice air assets
e) the loss of Paris is a massive manpower dump
f) Falaise is another release of troops - note we played with locked TB
Now does any of that kick in if you see this as an 18 turn game? No, but it does if its a 180 turn game to Jan 45 (or longer if Berlin becomes the deciding point).
Its a pity this ended, I was actually looking forward to a 1941 start ended up back in the Reich.
Steven has been great to play with and chat. I hope he now knows far more Gaelic than when we started.
Roger
So yes Odessa will fall, no doubt I'll cede Kyiv and at some stage pull out of Smolensk but the capacity to put me under sustained pressure has just been lost.
Its feasible he'll reach the HWM but not a guarentee but he's facing a good 3-4 months of game play basically stuck.
So some quick views.
This is only the 2nd time I've played the Axis in a 1941 GC (the first was during the alpha testing with a game that got to late 42 before a save breaking patch ended it). We started with the release patch, so have played across all the vagaries of the patching process post-release (actually more than most as we've used unreleased betas to test them out).
1) Broadly I did ok for the first 10 or so turns, lots to do different but broadly I had an idea and stuck to it (not all the idea was good, hence a Pzr corps wandering the Valdai)
2) I then got excited by lots of squirrels and spent 6 turns doing a bit of this and a bit of that - well that ended as expected
3) The first winter is grim, but I'd set up a good logistics system, only lost one VP city and stalled them just east of Smolensk
4) The summer of 1942 was tedious, I never got going it was endless ZoC and reserve reactions. But I did make full use of the fragility of the Soviets (that 45 NM really hurts), so retreats became routs and I carved out a steady stream of small pockets, as:
In total that period cost them 2.4m men
5) at the end of that I was really worried, the late 42/early 43 thresholds for an auto win for the Soviets are low and I had almost no HWM to rely on. As it was, that period passed with no real drama and I was able to construct a solid defensive line that did me for most of 1943 (and managed a few more pockets in the early phase) - this is the inverse of my awful 1942, I had a fresh army with high morale sat in level 3 forts and in excellent supply
6) for the last 3 months I've been falling back in the south and husbanding the Pzrs. I almost never had them in the front lines where they could be battered by Rifle Corps. Not all my attempts to lash back worked but on balance I landed some deadly blows.
7) I've worked out how to generate level 2 forts in about 4 turns, early on I was planning these months in advance, towards the end they were being put together just behind the current front.
Things that are pro-Axis
I realise its now standard to moan the game is biased, and its frustrating to see so many axis players give up when they could still win. Its worth restating the game is designed around either an axis auto win in late 42 or the 1944 HWM test.
a) I had far too much mobility, in the south when Steven made his big offensive I had 2 Pzr armies and they could swap assets with ease, so I had 7 Pzr corps that had 40+ MP, that allowed me to rebalance to deal with his incursions rather than worry about anticipation
b) the LW is effective even to this stage if you are careful about deployment, as may be clear I tried all sorts of odd stunts but the core was GS with this delivered by the placement of my assets, especially the fighters
c) The loss of Finland is an 'I win' for the Axis
d) the loss of N Africa yields some rather nice air assets
e) the loss of Paris is a massive manpower dump
f) Falaise is another release of troops - note we played with locked TB
Now does any of that kick in if you see this as an 18 turn game? No, but it does if its a 180 turn game to Jan 45 (or longer if Berlin becomes the deciding point).
Its a pity this ended, I was actually looking forward to a 1941 start ended up back in the Reich.
Steven has been great to play with and chat. I hope he now knows far more Gaelic than when we started.
Roger
-
Speedysteve
- Posts: 15974
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Reading, England
Re: Taming the Tiger or Slaying the Bear......loki100 (Axis) vs Speedy (SU)
Morning All,
So where to begin. As Roger mentioned I decided to surrender after the last turn. The reasons for this are several and many are linked. I'll provide a bit of self analysis of how I think the game went and then some overall thoughts on WITE2.
Firstly, thank you very much Roger for accepting to play me almost 1 year ago in real life time! You've been a diligent, communicative and skilled opponent and I thank you for answering many questions and teaching me some finer points of the game. You no doubt fully deserved the victory and are a better player than me.
So how do I think our game went? Broadly agree with Roger's assessment above.
1941 - I'm fairly happy with how I performed here. Especially since it was my foray into WITE2 since release. Naturally there's probably about 100-200 things I would do differently or that I learnt (not just in terms of units and combat but the nuances of the game, what to produce when, by how much etc etc)
1942 - At the time I was delighted with how this went. I defended in depth and prevented any real territorial progress by the Axis. The irony is in hindsight it was the year that destroyed any chance of the SU succeeding. I say that since I lost 2.4M men and Roger had a strong, in depth, fortified and well supplied defensive force as best prepared as they could be for 1943.
1943 - A damp squib of a year. Made far less progress than I was expecting. It was 'exciting' to rebuild the Red Army into the force it would need to be to win. That was about it for that year
1944 - High hopes and a lot of ambition for this year basing my thoughts on history and what really happened. That began to fade through January and into February. I'll come more on to this below.....
So....why did I surrender?
Several linked reasons.
Firstly, Due to a variety (of likely linked) factors I was making far less progress than historical and what was needed to achieve victory. My manpower had stalled and my Army was getting mauled. I was virtually out of Tanks and Planes. The casualty rate for both AFV's and Planes was not narrowing from the past = it would be impossible to advance and ironically overtime I would actually become less potent due to not being able to field planes or tanks on the map.
As Roger mentioned above the last Tank battle was the final straw. I lost 6-8 weeks of tank production in a single week. It would take months to rebuild the 40% of my Armoured force that was affected which is frankly ridiculous.
It was impossible for me to achieve any encirclement and surrender of forces since Roger always had a potent Mobile Reserve with high MP. For the Red Army not to be able to achieve tis in 1944 is incorrect IMO.
I could not apply echelon attacks and attritional warfare due to having a low manpower reserve. I even began scrapping some SU's to free some men for the frontline. This is where 1942 comes in. I lost so many men that it prevented me from having a necessary reserve for these latter years. The wonder of hindsight!
Not being able to achieve breakthroughs/encirclements or being able to attrite the Axis leaves the Red Army with no feasible warfare options. Coupled with that the LW still roamed about flying 100's of sorties. When there's over 50+ Axis fighters engaging any VVS force it's normally game over loss ratio wise for the VVS.
So....that's the reasons for my surrender.
My thoughts on the state of the game:
Firstly, is this the best simulation I've played of the War in Russia? Absolutely, yes hands down.
Do I think there's some elements that should be looked at to improve/tweak the historical factors that shaped/framed the War? Yes.
I can never say this with evidence but do I think Rogers and my game is 1 of a small amount that ran from release version to now and from GC41 to 1944? Yes.
As such many people focus on 1941 and 'specifics' there with little focus or game data from the latter years which are equally important. Many Axis players appear to be giving up in 1941 which I personally think is crazy and a complete waste of theirs and their opponents time. IF they play into 1942 they would realise this is the year that can win the war for them - either directly or (like Roger) by sowing the seeds of the SU destruction for the latter years.
So things that I think are too biased to the Axis and SU and potentially could be looked at.
Soviet Union:
1.) Supply Priority 4 - now I only started using the SP4 trick from late 1943 onwards. I don't know what affect it may have using this in 1941 onwards. I.e. would using it from the start nerf your forces and truck amounts come 1943 onwards when the demand for them increase exponentially? I don't know but it would be nice to see someone trying it. I flag this as a potential issue since from when I used it I was swimming in supply everywhere on the map regardless of what rail or depot structure they were on/near. Truck losses didn't appear to be too drastic.
2.) SR - This is an ironic one for me. Due to the freight/supply demands on map I found it very hard to consistently refit units on map. As such I began to send them back to SR en masse as it was more reliable and I tracked this over months. It is more efficient for the SU to do this (despite the time cost/CPP cost) and then zip them with a Ray Gun back to where they are needed on map. I know the SR is an abstract concept (and I don't know of another way to reflect it's purpose) but game wise it feels gimmicky if that makes sense.
Axis:
Totally agree with Roger's views on this. I'll add a few more thoughts on them.
1.) 'Free units' from Off Map Strategic Disasters (Italy, Finland and France). Just doesn't sit right with me. How on earth can a Strategic disaster in France provide the Axis with many units to use on the Eastern Front?!?
2.) Not a bias at all but something I think should be looked at (mentioned on the forum already) - tweaking the replacement % that goes into TB'. TB's seems to get them first and it makes no sense to me why 90% would be going to The West when the game is called War In The East 2 and that front is equally (if not more) important for replacements.
3.) MP's/Oil/Fuel - This is a BIGGIE for me that led to the combat results (IMO) we saw in late 1943/1944 onwards. To be frank Oil and Fuel do not work/matter in the game. The Axis NEVER have a Oil/Fuel shortage no matter what happens. This is huge for the game and the reality of how later years will play out. This factor alone will have one of the most profound affects on the ability for the Axis to fight and for the Soviet Union to fail in it's advance. Look at the examples in our game. By early 1944 the lack of fuel and oil was beginning to bite but with no limits the Panzers can zoom around everywhere with 40 MP's. This limits the ability for the soviet Union to advance and create viable pockets. Linked to this is the LW. They were most certainly not able to fly every single plane every week when needed at this stage of the war. This cripples the VVS since the pilot quality difference is still significant. They can continue to swamp the VVS and affect battle outcomes. Not good IMO.
So that's my summary. I've loved playing this game and my game with Roger but I will not be playing WITE2 again for some time (if at all) since this last point is a crippler for the Soviet Union (IMO)
If anyone has any specific questions please ask. I will not be on here anywhere near as much anymore but I'll get to the questions when I can.
Thanks again to Roger, for his FANTASTIC AAR updates and to the readers.
So where to begin. As Roger mentioned I decided to surrender after the last turn. The reasons for this are several and many are linked. I'll provide a bit of self analysis of how I think the game went and then some overall thoughts on WITE2.
Firstly, thank you very much Roger for accepting to play me almost 1 year ago in real life time! You've been a diligent, communicative and skilled opponent and I thank you for answering many questions and teaching me some finer points of the game. You no doubt fully deserved the victory and are a better player than me.
So how do I think our game went? Broadly agree with Roger's assessment above.
1941 - I'm fairly happy with how I performed here. Especially since it was my foray into WITE2 since release. Naturally there's probably about 100-200 things I would do differently or that I learnt (not just in terms of units and combat but the nuances of the game, what to produce when, by how much etc etc)
1942 - At the time I was delighted with how this went. I defended in depth and prevented any real territorial progress by the Axis. The irony is in hindsight it was the year that destroyed any chance of the SU succeeding. I say that since I lost 2.4M men and Roger had a strong, in depth, fortified and well supplied defensive force as best prepared as they could be for 1943.
1943 - A damp squib of a year. Made far less progress than I was expecting. It was 'exciting' to rebuild the Red Army into the force it would need to be to win. That was about it for that year
1944 - High hopes and a lot of ambition for this year basing my thoughts on history and what really happened. That began to fade through January and into February. I'll come more on to this below.....
So....why did I surrender?
Several linked reasons.
Firstly, Due to a variety (of likely linked) factors I was making far less progress than historical and what was needed to achieve victory. My manpower had stalled and my Army was getting mauled. I was virtually out of Tanks and Planes. The casualty rate for both AFV's and Planes was not narrowing from the past = it would be impossible to advance and ironically overtime I would actually become less potent due to not being able to field planes or tanks on the map.
As Roger mentioned above the last Tank battle was the final straw. I lost 6-8 weeks of tank production in a single week. It would take months to rebuild the 40% of my Armoured force that was affected which is frankly ridiculous.
It was impossible for me to achieve any encirclement and surrender of forces since Roger always had a potent Mobile Reserve with high MP. For the Red Army not to be able to achieve tis in 1944 is incorrect IMO.
I could not apply echelon attacks and attritional warfare due to having a low manpower reserve. I even began scrapping some SU's to free some men for the frontline. This is where 1942 comes in. I lost so many men that it prevented me from having a necessary reserve for these latter years. The wonder of hindsight!
Not being able to achieve breakthroughs/encirclements or being able to attrite the Axis leaves the Red Army with no feasible warfare options. Coupled with that the LW still roamed about flying 100's of sorties. When there's over 50+ Axis fighters engaging any VVS force it's normally game over loss ratio wise for the VVS.
So....that's the reasons for my surrender.
My thoughts on the state of the game:
Firstly, is this the best simulation I've played of the War in Russia? Absolutely, yes hands down.
Do I think there's some elements that should be looked at to improve/tweak the historical factors that shaped/framed the War? Yes.
I can never say this with evidence but do I think Rogers and my game is 1 of a small amount that ran from release version to now and from GC41 to 1944? Yes.
As such many people focus on 1941 and 'specifics' there with little focus or game data from the latter years which are equally important. Many Axis players appear to be giving up in 1941 which I personally think is crazy and a complete waste of theirs and their opponents time. IF they play into 1942 they would realise this is the year that can win the war for them - either directly or (like Roger) by sowing the seeds of the SU destruction for the latter years.
So things that I think are too biased to the Axis and SU and potentially could be looked at.
Soviet Union:
1.) Supply Priority 4 - now I only started using the SP4 trick from late 1943 onwards. I don't know what affect it may have using this in 1941 onwards. I.e. would using it from the start nerf your forces and truck amounts come 1943 onwards when the demand for them increase exponentially? I don't know but it would be nice to see someone trying it. I flag this as a potential issue since from when I used it I was swimming in supply everywhere on the map regardless of what rail or depot structure they were on/near. Truck losses didn't appear to be too drastic.
2.) SR - This is an ironic one for me. Due to the freight/supply demands on map I found it very hard to consistently refit units on map. As such I began to send them back to SR en masse as it was more reliable and I tracked this over months. It is more efficient for the SU to do this (despite the time cost/CPP cost) and then zip them with a Ray Gun back to where they are needed on map. I know the SR is an abstract concept (and I don't know of another way to reflect it's purpose) but game wise it feels gimmicky if that makes sense.
Axis:
Totally agree with Roger's views on this. I'll add a few more thoughts on them.
1.) 'Free units' from Off Map Strategic Disasters (Italy, Finland and France). Just doesn't sit right with me. How on earth can a Strategic disaster in France provide the Axis with many units to use on the Eastern Front?!?
2.) Not a bias at all but something I think should be looked at (mentioned on the forum already) - tweaking the replacement % that goes into TB'. TB's seems to get them first and it makes no sense to me why 90% would be going to The West when the game is called War In The East 2 and that front is equally (if not more) important for replacements.
3.) MP's/Oil/Fuel - This is a BIGGIE for me that led to the combat results (IMO) we saw in late 1943/1944 onwards. To be frank Oil and Fuel do not work/matter in the game. The Axis NEVER have a Oil/Fuel shortage no matter what happens. This is huge for the game and the reality of how later years will play out. This factor alone will have one of the most profound affects on the ability for the Axis to fight and for the Soviet Union to fail in it's advance. Look at the examples in our game. By early 1944 the lack of fuel and oil was beginning to bite but with no limits the Panzers can zoom around everywhere with 40 MP's. This limits the ability for the soviet Union to advance and create viable pockets. Linked to this is the LW. They were most certainly not able to fly every single plane every week when needed at this stage of the war. This cripples the VVS since the pilot quality difference is still significant. They can continue to swamp the VVS and affect battle outcomes. Not good IMO.
So that's my summary. I've loved playing this game and my game with Roger but I will not be playing WITE2 again for some time (if at all) since this last point is a crippler for the Soviet Union (IMO)
If anyone has any specific questions please ask. I will not be on here anywhere near as much anymore but I'll get to the questions when I can.
Thanks again to Roger, for his FANTASTIC AAR updates and to the readers.
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
Re: Taming the Tiger or Slaying the Bear......loki100 (Axis) vs Speedy (SU)
Steve,
some time ago i was asking if depots bombing is making any harm for your supply system and at that time it was secret info.
Now, when war is over, can you provide this info, if it is worth doing that kind of bombing of if it is a waste of planes?
some time ago i was asking if depots bombing is making any harm for your supply system and at that time it was secret info.
Now, when war is over, can you provide this info, if it is worth doing that kind of bombing of if it is a waste of planes?
Слава Україні!
Glory to Ukraine!
Glory to Ukraine!
-
Speedysteve
- Posts: 15974
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Reading, England
Re: Taming the Tiger or Slaying the Bear......loki100 (Axis) vs Speedy (SU)
Nope not a sausage. Didn't notice any significant effects of the railyard bombing in terms of freight movement or supply transfer. Note I believe Roger only started doing this when I was using SP4 so not sure if the super powers of the Glorious Soviet Union Logistics Company outweigh any affect it may have have when using SP1-3 levels. I also liked the FOW effect as I remember Roger saying he'd flattened Moscow - nope. Moscow only ever had 10-15% damage on it IIRC.
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
-
Sammy5IsAlive
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 11:01 pm
Re: Taming the Tiger or Slaying the Bear......loki100 (Axis) vs Speedy (SU)
Well played both - great AAR as well!
Interesting to compare and contrast with the StB AAR on the development forum that went to game end - I'm not sure I fully agree with Steve re the fuel/MPs issue (at least as far as it affects game balance). I do wonder whether the current VP configuration puts enough pressure on the Axis player to take risks/incur heavy losses in 1942?
Weirdly the forum upgrade seems to have replaced lots of Steve's screenshots with a WitPAE screenshot??? The issue is around page 14/15, not sure how long it lasts for???
Interesting to compare and contrast with the StB AAR on the development forum that went to game end - I'm not sure I fully agree with Steve re the fuel/MPs issue (at least as far as it affects game balance). I do wonder whether the current VP configuration puts enough pressure on the Axis player to take risks/incur heavy losses in 1942?
Weirdly the forum upgrade seems to have replaced lots of Steve's screenshots with a WitPAE screenshot??? The issue is around page 14/15, not sure how long it lasts for???
Re: Taming the Tiger or Slaying the Bear......loki100 (Axis) vs Speedy (SU)
The MP issue is a mix of probably too high a baseline and me very deliberately managing the situation.
About 6 turns back, my Pzrs that had been in heavy action were dropping to mid-20 MP, so I gave up a lot of ground in the centre to simplify my supply lines, that got me back to 40+.
The effect was I could pair 2 Pzr A, especially as I pulled back on my Kyiv defensive line and could release 1 Pzr A to the south of Kyiv. That gave me about 7 Pzr Corps sat in a line from the Dnipr to the coast, out of reach (I think Steven's breakthrough caught and trashed one formation), but able to concentrate into whatever configuration I then wanted.
So there is a fair question as to whether pretty much every Pzr/PzrGr formation in Feb 44 should have 40+ MP, but I did put a lot of planning into generating that situation, including pulling out of some long constructed defensive lines.
I think the VP system worked fine. Come late 42 I had no choice up to about Apri 43 but to produce a hard defence, if the HWM had swapped the Soviets would have got a win vs the auto totals. Equally my commitment to the battles between Stalino and the Dnepr were VP driven (I wanted to deny the time bonus for the 2 cities in the Dnepr bend). So my planning was constantly one of expending scarce resources where they had the most impact on the time bonuses. My route to a win in Jan 45 was crudely hold the VP cities in Rumania (& I was well set up for this even if Rumania surrendered) and deny the time bonus for Lviv, Minsk and Riga. Whether that was feasible is now, unfortunately, untestable.
About 6 turns back, my Pzrs that had been in heavy action were dropping to mid-20 MP, so I gave up a lot of ground in the centre to simplify my supply lines, that got me back to 40+.
The effect was I could pair 2 Pzr A, especially as I pulled back on my Kyiv defensive line and could release 1 Pzr A to the south of Kyiv. That gave me about 7 Pzr Corps sat in a line from the Dnipr to the coast, out of reach (I think Steven's breakthrough caught and trashed one formation), but able to concentrate into whatever configuration I then wanted.
So there is a fair question as to whether pretty much every Pzr/PzrGr formation in Feb 44 should have 40+ MP, but I did put a lot of planning into generating that situation, including pulling out of some long constructed defensive lines.
I think the VP system worked fine. Come late 42 I had no choice up to about Apri 43 but to produce a hard defence, if the HWM had swapped the Soviets would have got a win vs the auto totals. Equally my commitment to the battles between Stalino and the Dnepr were VP driven (I wanted to deny the time bonus for the 2 cities in the Dnepr bend). So my planning was constantly one of expending scarce resources where they had the most impact on the time bonuses. My route to a win in Jan 45 was crudely hold the VP cities in Rumania (& I was well set up for this even if Rumania surrendered) and deny the time bonus for Lviv, Minsk and Riga. Whether that was feasible is now, unfortunately, untestable.